AIRCANON From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 238 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (12 years 9 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2082 times:
Hi Jonas!
Well actually you bought the lens about 22 days ago as you wrote me in a earlier posting. Never the less congratulations on that new Canon EF 75-300/4.5-5,6 III lens. I told you that you will be satisfied with it and i was right, wasn´t i ? Good lens at a good price.
A good shot of the Shorts 360.
So just keep on making more good shot´s and be happy with the lens. I will be looking forward seeing more aviation photo´s of yours on airliners.net in the near future.
Mirage From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3120 posts, RR: 16 Reply 4, posted (12 years 9 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2063 times:
The fact your photo is "flat" has nothing to do with the fact that your camera is a Nikon, absolutelly incorrect. First you were against the sun, second you shot 2/3's of clear blue sky, third the camera automatically compensated the overexposure of light coming from the sky making the rest of the photo darker (the plane), in this cases is better to shot 2/3's of dark ground so that the plane can become more iluminated. One of the basic things you must avoid is to shot against the sun.
And don't be so easilly influencied, if I show you a good photo taken with a Minolta will you go buy a Minolta just because of that? I hope not. Lenses are more important than cameras.
FastGlass From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 0 posts, RR: 5 Reply 5, posted (12 years 9 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2055 times:
Judging from the shadows, the picture wasn't shot exactly against the sun. It appears that the sun was at a 90-degree angle to the left, which is just as bad. During post-scanning manipulation, brightening the midtones could help the aircraft image, but would also wash-out the sky a bit.
I agree that the lens is the most important component for the shot, although come camera bodies have "smarter" meters than others; ala matrix, center weighted, and spot. However, you cannot ignore the shooting conditions either. Keep the sun at your back, and the lens pointed forward!
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 545 posts, RR: 17 Reply 8, posted (12 years 9 months 11 hours ago) and read 2029 times:
Careful - that attititude gets camera shops rich and photographers frustrated. There are extremely few instances where the camera used (talking 35mm SLR here) makes any direct significant difference to the final shot. Different features may facilitate getting the shot (metering systems, motordrives etc. etc.), but all else being equal, the quality of even budget equipment these days will produce as good results as a top end
Nikon (when used with the same lens!).
Even the difference between lenses is less than you might think, and it is often only by careful analysis of a slide you can detect the difference - you sure won't see it on a computer monitor!
Film is probably the most significant "equipment" change you can make.
FastGlass From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 0 posts, RR: 5 Reply 9, posted (12 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2005 times:
Colin is right. Along with the lens, the choice of film is critical. Many use print film and scan them on a flatbed scanner. But you must remember that when scanning a print, you are scanning a "second generation" image that has already been through an enlarging process.
The sharpest scans come from a "first generation" image, as in slide or negative. Unfortunately dedicated film scanners aren't cheap, and color adjustments to negatives are a pain in the butt.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 545 posts, RR: 17 Reply 10, posted (12 years 8 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 2000 times:
As FastGlass says, dedicated film scanners aren't cheap - but they are getting cheaper. In the UK, Jessops are selling one with (I think) 2400 dpi resolution for about 150.
Negative colour balance is a pain - part of the problem being you have no (accurate) original to compare it with! 1 trick worth trying if your software allows it is to obtain the pixel values of a neutral area in your preview scan (ie. something you want to appear as grey or near white) and adjust the colour blance so the RGB values are equal eg. Blue 147, Red 147 Green 147 - this should eliminate any unwanted colour cast.
Another nice feature in Photoshop is the "variations" view of the image which shows thumbnails of your picture with different corrections applied (more blue, more green etc.). It gives an instant impression of whther you're in the ballpark or which direction you need to go to get there!
Sponsor Message: 
From Sweden, joined May 1999, 501 posts, 
From Austria, joined Aug 2000, 238 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1538 posts, 
From Portugal, joined May 1999, 3120 posts, 
From Jamaica, joined Jul 2006, 0 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 545 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
