Here is an eclipse that occurred in December. Don't really know how to edit, so, yeah...




The treeline is blocking the moon towards the bottom. I didn't like how the treeline looked,so I just made it black. I didn't do any editing aside from stacking the images, cropping the moons out, and making the background sky/foreground trees darker.

that is badass! sweet shot!


I'm building this DIY Ringlight currently to go with my 100mm macro. (cliff notes: metal bowl, pipe going through middle for lens and thin translucent plastic on the front to diffuse the light. Flash comes in from the bottom)

In the video the guy used reflective aluminum flashing tape around the duct coupler to better diffuse the light. Do you think I'd get better results with the somewhat shiny reflective aluminum inside or should i prime it and paint it a high gloss white? I don't know what would defuse the light better.

Are you sure he is using the shiny aluminum tape in order to diffuse the light? I think he is trying to reflect the light with less diffusion at this stage, so it is more concentrated until it hits the diffusion medium, which is the Chefmate cutting mat.

There are two types of reflection off of every surface: specular reflection and diffuse reflection. With specular reflection, the light waves arriving from a single direction are reflected in the same direction. With diffuse reflection, lightwaves arriving from the same direction are reflected in many different directions. Diffuse reflection occurs with a rough surface, or when the light penetrates the surface somewhat before reflecting. Specular reflection is maximized by smooth, shiny, dense surfaces, diffuse reflection is maximized by rough, matt, porous surfaces.

If you want to maximize diffusion on the surface of the vent reducer, use matt white, not glossy.

I don't know enough about flash units or physics to know whether specular reflection or diffuse reflection is what you want to get off that vent adaptor. It probably comes down to whether the diffusion offerd by the cutting mat is adequate, insufficient or already a bit more than optimal. I suspect the effect of diffuse reflection off the vent adaptor will be to reduce emitted light intensity and increase required exposure length.

It is entirely possible that since light is entering the ring from only one side, that the optimal design has diffuse reflection on one part of the adaptor and specular reflection on the rest.

One final comment on the design: I suspect this unit will be more useful as a beauty lamp than as a ring light for macro work. One really should have access to manual focus for macro photography.

http://www.inbedwithsue.com/before-after/ NSFWish

here is some good before and after portraits. amazing what you can do with hair, makeup, and photoshop

It probably says something about me that by and large I much preferred the "before" shots. It's not that I think the "after" shots were badly executed at all, but from my perspective at least, I just feel like the "before" shots do a much better job of capturing the true nature of the model. Somehow that always seems to get lost under a layer of makeup, a pose, and post-processing. I guess these days I'm just more interested in people than seeing yet more photos of girls striking poses in underwear - poses that feel more and more cookie-cutter and insincere to me as time goes on. I don't doubt I'm probably in the minority, but there's some examples in that slideshow where the model looks like a genuinely interesting, nice and good person in the "before" shot, but then any trace of personality or individuality just disappears with the "after".

I guess that's one of the main reasons that I'm not into glamour or fashion photography in general.


/buzzkill

some of the after shots are kinda **** and over done one a girl that is already cute to begin with but some of them make normal middle aged women look way younger and more attractive for sure.

Yeah, I certainly didn't want to diss your link or anything like that. It's definitely an interesting site that gives insight into how much is generally done to transform people for these kinds of shoots. it just happens that I inevitably end up preferring photos of "real" people these days. I think a lot of that might come down to me having spent quite a lot of time as the guy who would transform the "before" to the "after" in Photoshop, so part of me has grown sort of numb to the process, and has almost even learned to resent it a little bit. I think there's definitely a place for that kind of photography though, and there's obviously a big market for it.

totally agree with you. i just think it's very interesting what people do with photography

i know a lot of women who would pay a bazillion dollars just to have a facebook pic were they don't look old and or fat lol

Lol. Now that I can't argue with! Same here

but would they pay a gazillion?

Lol. If they would, I take everything back that I just said and I'm getting into that business!

I've been lurking this thread for a few months. Lots of great informative posts and photos. I'm just starting out. Below are scans from film taken with a Minolta Maxxum 3000i with a Minolta AF 100-200mm F/4.5 lens. Both of which I got for free along with a 50mm F/1 .7 lens when a friend was cleaning out her closet.

I've since purchased a Sony A35 which will work with the old Minolta lenses.

Any change in pixel count, signal:noise ratio, ISO sensitivity or dynamic range would require a new sensor. The D7000's sensor has only been used in two models. They usually re-use a sensor for three or four bodies. Five of the six most recently announced Nikon dSLRs have had new sensor designs, whereas 6 of the seven previous bodies reused sensors from earlier designs. So it's likely that either the D7100 will use the same sensor, and you won't see any of those improvements, or the sensor will be used in the replacement for the D3100.

Increased pixel count certainly shouldn't be on the list for people who use optically inferior lenses. Good lenses can still benefit from a higher pixel count. We are nowhere near diffraction limit for all common apertures. Canon has three cameras with pixels that are 10% smaller than the D7000's. That pixel size on Nikon's DX factor would be a 20MP camera.

Since the metering system was brand new to the D7000, I'm not so sure we're going to see any change there, though tweaking performance in bright scenes might be welcome.

I've got to believe there will be upgrades to video capability. They need to provide 1080p60. (is this dependent on the sensor itself?) Even better active focus (which would come hand-in-hand with a faster frame rate) and an audio monitor jack would be nice, as would wind noise suppression. I agree with you that not everybody needs video. I wish they would make a still-only camera, with all the still features, but leaving out the video capability and live view, for a lower price.

Another possible area for improvement is the controls. ISO and WB could be easier to use while looking through the viewfinder. The ergonomics of the stacked mode dials could be improved. There could be more information added to the viewfinder display. Changes to aperture setting while in live view should take place immediately, not wait for a still shot. The menu system could stand for a major re-ordering.

A larger buffer might allow an even faster burst rate, and perhaps multiple frame (not just two) HDR.

It might be nice to have a taller body, or redesigned built-in flash, so the flash didn't interfere with upward shift of PC lenses. A slightly taller body might also better accommodate a flipout screen.


Neat idea!

Given the amount of unmet demand for the D7000, I wouldn't be too surprised if Nikon extended its market life beyond the current end date of Decemeber 2012.

I think many people would welcome this, but I'm not sure how likely it is due to the fact that (as far as I know) none of Nikon's other cameras (including their newly announced higher end bodies) can handle 1080p/60. Maybe a DX sensor would allow this to happen more easily? Even then, I wouldn't be surprised if they left that as a distinguishing feature for the D400.

It's possible to do this with ISO already if you assign the ISO control to the rear command dial while in Shutter or Aperture priority. I tend to shoot this way a lot when I'm not in auto ISO mode (when shooting with my 50mm I tend to have the camera set to Aperture Priority, with auto ISO set to have 1/60 sec as the slowest shutter speed and max ISO set to 3200. I find this to be a fairly effective combo). When I'm not in auto ISO mode then I use the rear command dial to change my ISO, and that change is reflected in the viewfinder. This obviously can't be done in manual mode though, but for those times there's a button that acts as a dedicated ISO button on the rear of the body that can be used with the rear command dial, which can still be accessed while looking through the viewfinder, and the ISO changes can also be seen within the viewfinder.

WB I never worry about in the field because I always shoot RAW, and as such I tend to forget that some people still shoot JPEG. For those people I agree that more direct WB control would be welcomed, but I'm really left wondering how many people who use a D7000/D7100 would be shooting in JPEG anyway? I'd imagine the target market for this camera to be serious hobbyists, and as a backup body for pros in certain fields. I always imagine people who shoot JPEG to fall into one of two categories - amateurs/casual hobbyists, and professionals in the field of sports photography or photojournalism (where they are working to tight deadlines and need to upload shots to the editor immediately after the event). I personally don't see either of these groups being the type that would be buying a D7000/7100, so I guess I feel that the WB button on the rear of the body on the D7000 is already enough to accommodate those people that tend to need it. I could be waaaay off here, but that's how I've always tended to look at things up to now.

Ahh shoot, this is one I forgot, but something I'd *really* like to see improved upon with the next model - bigger bracketed bursts for HDR etc. 3 is semi-useful but often falls short of what's needed. The ability to set this number to 5 (or ideally 7) would be incredibly welcomed as far as I'm concerned.

Academy of Sciences in SF



non hdr, some of it is blown out

that moon pic is really cool

I like this very much.


you can probably fix that really easy in light room

I used to do the vast majority of my shooting in A mode, and much of the rest in S. As I learn more about exposure, I find myself shooting in M more frequently. I have the same sort of button on my Nikon body, and as on the D7000, it is one of a column of identically-shaped buttons on the left side of the back panel. Some people find it a lttle hard to know which button to push if their eye is to the viewfinder. Even something like a raised dot on the ISO button and a texture on the WB button would be helpful.

I expect there are almost as many different ways to select a camera and use it as there are people buying cameras. I think a fair number of amateurs with money to spare will buy a D7000 over a cheaper body, and then use it to shoot JPEGs. I also think there are some serious photographers (or people who think they are serious photographers) who don't shoot raw, and not because of tight timelines like news/sports. This could include older photographers who are comfortable with cameras but less comfortable with computers. It also includes the school of photographer that thinks if you set your shot up correctly in the first place you won't have to edit it in post. There are people who want to spend their time behind a camera, not in front of a computer. The highly influential (though often ridiculed) Ken Rockwell says he shoots JPEG, not RAW.

To use RAW effectively, you need good software, and you need to know how to use it well, and you actually have to use it. Even if you have the software and know how to use it, for some shooting situations, it isn't worth bothering with RAW. Not every photograph has to be a work of art. A significant portion of the shots I take will never get any processing beyond maybe crop/resize for print/webpost.

Finally there is the issue of cost. A D7000 and a set of lenses worthy of it will cost thousands of dollars/pounds/Euros. Not everybody can afford to buy all that and another thousand worth of software, and not everybody pirates software. They may choose to buy the lenses first, the good body second and only then get the software.

You may well be correct. Perhaps the vast majority of people who buy D7000s shoot almost exclusively in RAW, and/or don't need or want easier access to WB control. Even then, if Nikon can improve the user interface, they will sell more cameras, either by impressing more customers in showrooms, or by getting higher review scores.

So, what lenses do you have for your D7000?

I just picked up the d7000 yesterday. So far I have noticed the autofocus is really amazing as well as some other nice features over the d90. I'll post some cool tutorial videos I found if anyone is interested.

You can probably put more time into it and mess with the faders, but i just spot touched up the bottom left hand corner and developed it a tiny bit more and it doesn't look quite as blown out. I guess I could have altered the contrast some too but I haven't messed with any b&w yet.

JV: I would have loved some close ups of that thing, some very interesting stuff catching my eye in that pic.

Nice pic btw.

Tutorials would be most welcome.

I watched a load of videos this week. I will post a highlight compilation of links when I get a chance.

A fair point well made

I certainly don't think Ken Rockwell is worthy of ridicule, as he definitely knows what he's talking about in a lot of areas, but one of his shortcomings is that he is *hyper* militant in his views and opinions. I've often read Rockwell's reasons for not shooting RAW, and every time it basically sounds like he's saying "if you have to shoot in anything other than JPEG, you're doing it wrong". The problem I have with him, and probably the reason why he opens himself up potentially to ridicule, is that he doesn't express his opinions as opinions - he expresses them as fact. This understandably comes off as very intolerant and arrogant to a lot of people, so he kind of brings heat on himself with his attitude a lot of the time. If he'd tone down on being so "in your face" with certain controversial/polarising viewpoints then he'd in all likelihood go down a lot better in some circles. Just IMO of course

When I first bought it I was on a budget and it was only available in kit form, so I started off with just the 18-105. I have since dropped this and I think I've screwed the autofocus on it, so I might have to have a word with my insurance company.

Not long after that I added the 50mm f/1.8 AF-D. Probably the lens that spends the most time on my camera.

Finally I added the Tokina 11-16mm. While I love this lens I haven't had as many opportunities as I would like to put it to good use. Annoyingly I lost a decent amount of mobility shortly after buying the lens which has kind of precluded me from getting out in the field and finding decent subject matter to shoot with it.

My next lens will be a 35mm f/1.8, and then I'm thinking long and hard about whether I can justify the price of the 17-55 f/2.8.