quote:

Originally posted by ador:

Again, those are beatiful pictures.

Pictures typically don't look like that coming out of camera. You have to shoot in a raw format and spend time post processing them.

Post processing a photo can be as simple or involved as you like. Professional photographers shooting for commercial projects will spend hours upon hours individually sharpening beads of sweat on an athlete's face, or manipulating shadows so that the texture of the shoe fabric looks just right (look closely at a Nike ad sometime).

Or, you can just click and apply a preset that you've found on the internet (much like an Instagram filter that your kids might use on their phone) and instantly change the look of your photo.

There are tutorials for days on YouTube on how to use Lightroom, Photoshop and Adobe Camera RAW to post process your photos, but the best resource I found when I was just starting were tutorials created by Julieanne Kost, who works for Adobe:

http://www.jkost.com/lightroom.html

This is an example of what Adobe can do for you.
In the background was a large County truck in Tweety Bird yellow. It's gone. I'll tell you a secret here and I use it often. I sharpen what I want people to see and I add Gaussian blur to the other areas this drawing the eye to the sharp area. It helps to understand how people see but we're working on the basics here.

This Way to REX FLOUR

And the amazing ghost sign that drew me to the place. Butte, Montana is the Americana, old urban Valhalla.

Sweeping View of Montana Broom

One more from Butte, the place is a photographers dream.

Holidays gotcha Down?

What the heck, Americana.

Cave City, KY
Sleep in a WigWam off US 31

Fargo
A Night at the Donaldson

The Gemini Giant in Wilmington, IL. (Rte 66)
KLAATU

You can see the rule of thirds in use. I can hardly look at photos without "seeing" the cross hatch.

quote:

Originally posted by NavyGuy:
As already suggested, a prime lens will give you great pictures. You lose the zoom ability but for most shots such as people, stationary objects fairly close shots all you need do is walk closer or further away a few steps to compose the shot.

I recommend the Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G Lens. Just shy of $200 it's a great walk around lens. Light weight, takes crystal clear images and is fast enough so you don't need a flash with normal room lighting in most cases. Programmed Auto is a good starting point to get away from full Auto mode or the pre programmed scene modes. I will say however, the D90 auto mode takes fairly good images and is pretty much full proof if you don't have the time to select manual settings.

A lens I have used and loved. At the price it is a steal. One of the truly great bargains for what you get, Foot zoom to compose then unless you have to use a telephoto. Fixed lenses teach composition in a different way. You become even more engaged in the process. It's more physical.

Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson is The only book I can recommend.

quote:

Originally posted by ador:
Chuckwall, those are AMAZING photos (and the rest of the other pictures posted by other members). That is what I am talking about. The previous photos I have taken are nowhere near those colors and sharpness. Mine were not as colorful (that’s what I meant by NOT sharp).

Again, those are beatiful pictures.

I am curious as to how you have the picture control set up. I generally have it set for "Neutral." Also, how do set your White Balance? I usually use "Cloudy" or "Portrait." Those items also have an impact on your picture quality.

quote:

Originally posted by Ogie:

quote:

Originally posted by ador:
Chuckwall, those are AMAZING photos (and the rest of the other pictures posted by other members). That is what I am talking about. The previous photos I have taken are nowhere near those colors and sharpness. Mine were not as colorful (that’s what I meant by NOT sharp).

Again, those are beatiful pictures.

I am curious as to how you have the picture control set up. I generally have it set for "Neutral." Also, how do set your White Balance? I usually use "Cloudy" or "Portrait." Those items also have an impact on your picture quality.

Well, what are you shooting? Modern cameras in auto WB mode do a hell of a job and since I can correct color cast later, I use that a good part of the time.

If its portraits inside, I guess flash if you're using flash. That's what I use, but I at least fill most of those I take which isn't many. I used to do portraits for a living long ago. But had a light setup. Otherwise, Id use daylight since that's the best available light for me.

Cloudy? I assume you are trying to warm the shot up? Does your camera add a cool or blue cast?

quote:

Originally posted by ChuckWall:

quote:

Originally posted by Ogie:

quote:

Originally posted by ador:
Chuckwall, those are AMAZING photos (and the rest of the other pictures posted by other members). That is what I am talking about. The previous photos I have taken are nowhere near those colors and sharpness. Mine were not as colorful (that’s what I meant by NOT sharp).

Again, those are beatiful pictures.

I am curious as to how you have the picture control set up. I generally have it set for "Neutral." Also, how do set your White Balance? I usually use "Cloudy" or "Portrait." Those items also have an impact on your picture quality.

Well, what are you shooting? Modern cameras in auto WB mode do a hell of a job and since I can correct color cast later, I use that a good part of the time.

If its portraits inside, I guess flash if you're using flash. That's what I use, but I at least fill most of those I take which isn't many. I used to do portraits for a living long ago. But had a light setup. Otherwise, Id use daylight since that's the best available light for me.

Cloudy? I assume you are trying to warm the shot up? Does your camera add a cool or blue cast?

Cloudy to warm things up. I also use a flash outdoors for portraits. I have had some excellent results with the SB-900 and a DEMB flash diffuser. I am not a pro but I have had good results nonetheless.

quote:

Originally posted by Ogie:

quote:

Originally posted by ChuckWall:

quote:

Originally posted by Ogie:

quote:

Originally posted by ador:
Chuckwall, those are AMAZING photos (and the rest of the other pictures posted by other members). That is what I am talking about. The previous photos I have taken are nowhere near those colors and sharpness. Mine were not as colorful (that’s what I meant by NOT sharp).

Again, those are beatiful pictures.

I am curious as to how you have the picture control set up. I generally have it set for "Neutral." Also, how do set your White Balance? I usually use "Cloudy" or "Portrait." Those items also have an impact on your picture quality.

Well, what are you shooting? Modern cameras in auto WB mode do a hell of a job and since I can correct color cast later, I use that a good part of the time.

If its portraits inside, I guess flash if you're using flash. That's what I use, but I at least fill most of those I take which isn't many. I used to do portraits for a living long ago. But had a light setup. Otherwise, Id use daylight since that's the best available light for me.

Cloudy? I assume you are trying to warm the shot up? Does your camera add a cool or blue cast?

Cloudy to warm things up. I also use a flash outdoors for portraits. I have had some excellent results with the SB-900 and a DEMB flash diffuser. I am not a pro but I have had good results nonetheless.

Sounds like you don't need any help. Warmth for skin, filling where you want contrast. The diffuser to prevent harshness and provide even light. Is there something you're not liking, cuz it sounds fine to me?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ChuckWall,

As a long time Nikon user (going back to the F) I have a considerable collection of lenses. I also have the 18-105 AFS VR and the 70-300 AFS VR. Sound familiar< yeah YOUR lenses. I also have a D300 and D750 and have used these lenses on both. Your 18-105 is actually SHARPER than my 50mm F1.4 Nikkor AF-D. Also sharper than my 28mm f2.8 AF-D.

I also have a D70 and can tell you your limiting factor isn't your lenses, it's your camera. Your D90 is Ancient in terms of digital photography. Lots of noise at High ISO setting, and over aggressive anti aliasing filter, and a limited range of ISO settings.

I would suggest a new Nikon compatible with you existing lenses. Start at the lowest rung and the D3300 with it's single lens 18-55 kit will only set you back 399.95. Leave the 18-55 in a box and mount your 18-105 and you'll have a great walkaround package.

As for the camera itself, how about 24mp and a 100 to 12,800 ISO range in a 4 or 5th generation design that will have you shooting at ISO 3000 and getting LESS noise than your D90 and ISO 400. Plus you'll get 5 frames per second, HD video capability in a wide variety of settings and a rear monitor that is actually viewable in daylight if you have a bit of shade. There there are the SDHC memory chips up to 128 Megabytes (BTW, IMO 64mb is plenty and lots cheaper than the super size chip and much easier to find.) Don't know if you've looked for Compact Flash cards recently but the are becoming unobtainium. Finally with a body only weighing 14 ounces without a lens your shoulder will thank you.

Now if that seems a bit too low end just keep in mind that is the starting point. In the DX lineup the end point is the D500 with "only" 20.9 mp, a 10 fps frame rate, and ISO range of 100 to 1,640,000. Yeah, at maximum overdrive you have an ISO of 1 Million, 6 hundred 40 thousand. Hold up a kitchen match and use it as a spot light freaking high ISO. BTW, you really wont notice the difference between 20.9 and 24 mp so that slight drop isn't really a loss. One of the big gains with the D500 is it's focusing system. There is also the 4k UHD video. However it's a full on Pro camera and it's really not a god choice for a casual shooter. My point is that there is a whole range of models between these two and you should spend time looking at all of them and choose the best balance between price and features for YOU.

PS; My D750 is an amazing camera but a bit on the heavy side and I've been considering something like the D7200 to replace the D300 in my "light" kit because as good as the D300 was it's also getting a bit long in the tooth.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That 3300 is a sweet little camera, and is way ahead of your D90 technology-wise. I shot a Canon Rebel (same size as the 3300) at work (part time job, but I would shoot 2000 shots a day easily) and I was amazed at how good it was (compared to the D80 I had at the time).

I can't believe where this thread has gone. The OP has said that he has X camera with X lenses and a modest budget and little experience and little knowledge.

The best advice I can give is take your existing equipment and SHOOT IN RAW!!!

Have a great time on your trip and worry about your pics later.

When you get home and have some free time, get a photo editing program and learn how to use it.

Once you start editing your photos you could turn it into a pleasant pastime or like me, a hobby.

I still stand by my original suggestion about leaving the 70-300mm lens home. The odds of you needing it on that trip is next to zero. Your 18-105mm will cover 95% of your needs.

Just have a great time and worry about your shots later if you shot in raw.

Jim

Get the manual online.
Learn to quickly set up time release. Use image stabilization unless it’s on a tripod.
For me Lightroom is much easier to learn for post processing than Photoshop and also serves as a catalog of your photos.
Dolica amakes a nice tripod for travel.
Shoot lots BEFORE you go. Practice the different settings AND how to quickly set them in the field. It’s like training for shooting. You will see something you want RIGHT NOW. You don’t want to be fooling around in a submenu. Voice of experience on that last one!!

quote:

Originally posted by ChuckWall:

quote:

Originally posted by Ogie:

quote:

Originally posted by ChuckWall:

quote:

Originally posted by Ogie:

quote:

Originally posted by ador:
Chuckwall, those are AMAZING photos (and the rest of the other pictures posted by other members). That is what I am talking about. The previous photos I have taken are nowhere near those colors and sharpness. Mine were not as colorful (that’s what I meant by NOT sharp).

Again, those are beatiful pictures.

I am curious as to how you have the picture control set up. I generally have it set for "Neutral." Also, how do set your White Balance? I usually use "Cloudy" or "Portrait." Those items also have an impact on your picture quality.

Well, what are you shooting? Modern cameras in auto WB mode do a hell of a job and since I can correct color cast later, I use that a good part of the time.

If its portraits inside, I guess flash if you're using flash. That's what I use, but I at least fill most of those I take which isn't many. I used to do portraits for a living long ago. But had a light setup. Otherwise, Id use daylight since that's the best available light for me.

Cloudy? I assume you are trying to warm the shot up? Does your camera add a cool or blue cast?

Cloudy to warm things up. I also use a flash outdoors for portraits. I have had some excellent results with the SB-900 and a DEMB flash diffuser. I am not a pro but I have had good results nonetheless.

Sounds like you don't need any help. Warmth for skin, filling where you want contrast. The diffuser to prevent harshness and provide even light. Is there something you're not liking, cuz it sounds fine to me?

No, I'm good. I am always interesting in learning and improving though!

Saw this thread now. My wife started her semi-pro photography business with a D80 and a 18-300 lens (IIRC). While a good camera, and adequate for most needs, the compact sensor series do not have anything near the low light capabilities of the full frame sensor cameras. She currently shoots mostly with prime lenses (50mm f/1.4 AF-S, 105mm f/2 D) and a 28-300VR lens that is a beast (heavy but covers everything. The 50mm f/1.8 lens is an amazing lens as well, she used it for a time before going to the faster 1.4 lens, it really is a steal for the quality. For outdoor shooting, I don't think a full frame camera is needed, but you do need to learn how to make it work for you. Learn how aperture and shutter speed work to change the properties of a shot. High aperture (F-stop) numbers make for a sharper image (more depth of field - the fore ground, mid ground, and back ground all seem to be in focus), however, because the pupil of the camera is smaller, less light gets in - thus, more overall light is needed (achieved either through more light at the subject - using a flash or just a really bright day or through a longer time that the shutter is open). If you keep the shutter open a long time to let in more light, the camera must be held completely still to keep the image sharp. In my experience, I can't keep a sharp image for more than 100th of a second - 400 is easier and more reliable - this is the shutter speed.
With a photo, you need a certain amount of light for a picture, you achieve this by either increasing the amount at the subject (bright sun, turn on interior lights, or flash) or increasing the amount of time the sensor/film has to collect light by decreasing the shutter speed (which increases the amount of time the shutter is open).
It seems complicated at first, but when you think about it in terms of collecting the proper amount of light to get the picture you desire, it makes sense, and then you can compose your picture more easily. I am a neophyte compared to my wife, but have learned this over time and now have a decent understanding of how it works. You have to have a decent image to start with before you can really work with the post production software to improve it - and that is a huge area to learn about, much beyond what I know.

You have decent equipment already to take good photos, particularly in daylight outdoors. Learn a bit about it, play with it, and you should be able to take some great shots!