Beginner Some advice required please...

Hertsman

Hertsman

Messages
3,413
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Ive been togging for a good few years now, and have an understanding of the "triangle" in relation to the criteria of exposure.

I have found of late that my images have been way below my expectations and Im not entirely sure why.

My kit is basically D200, 18/70 3.5 AFS with the option of a 1.8 nifty and flash if required.

I have found of late, that I need to push the ISO higher and higher to get the image crispness/exposure that Im after and the D200 is poor in this respect.

I know Im not the most stable of camera platforms, so tend to go for a higher shutter than maybe required, which then leads to higer ISO,in turn, this leads to crappy,grainy pics.

Of late, I have mostly been snapping aquarium fish (tricky at best),my Crested Gecko and other indoor shots.

For example, today, I went to Crufts. The indoor lighting is awfull, so I shot Raw to give me a chance. But even then, the shots were beyond basic PP. (Elements 8 user)

All of which end up with me pushing the ISO to the point of nastiness.

So, what needs to change ?

My approach ?
Glass ?
Or body ?

Thanks for looking....
 
If you post some example pictures with Exif data and some information about how you took them, that will help.
 
Mark, I have a D200 as well, it is very poor at higher ISO settings. I use mine for various things, but indoor action shots are definately beyond its capabilities generally.

Yes, you can buy better glass, F2.8 lenses for example. Or you could upgrade the body to a D3oo for example.

As Stewart says, post some shots, that will help you get better advice.Also, giving a idea of what you would like to do specifically and a budget to achieve that will help.
 
It sounds like the shots that you're disappointed with are indoors, and you're right, the D200 isn't a great high ISO performer. If you're shooting mainly indoors under low light conditions, then obviously using the flash to allow a lower ISO would be the way to go (if you can). If this is not possible with the shots you're trying to achieve then the other option would be to upgrade to a newer camera body with better high ISO performance.

How do you feel about the results you get with outdoor shots?

As Stewart said, would be useful to see some examples.
 
hard to comment when you dont show us what your dissapointed wiht..

at a guess.. yes better glass and better body will help in some situatiopns.. it's a myth that a good photgrapher can take a good picture with any camera and your finding that out... sometimes your needs surpass the limits of your equipment and thats where you seem to be at..
 
Couple of examples from yesterday. I didnt take my flash as I thought Id get away with it shooting RAW,but that didnt work.

Have a look through my other Flickr pics, and IM happy with all of them, pretty much.

I just cannot get the shots indoors I want, without loads of faffing.



DSC_7401 by mark_p99, on Flickr


DSC_7403 by mark_p99, on Flickr
 
Put simply that is massively under exposed, it should be possible to still get a shot out of the RAW but it's going to be noisy, as @KIPAX said at some point your equipment becomes a limiting factor in your shooting and at that time you need to upgrade (y) it looks like you've got to that point
 
Raptor Mike said:
Have you accidently knocked the exposure compensation down?
Click to expand...

Not according to the exif on the first image.

CameraNikon D200
Exposure0.008 sec (1/125)
Aperturef/4.2
Focal Length40 mm
Focal Length40.0 mm
ISO Speed800
Exposure Bias0 EV


That suggests that the lighting was just too dark, it was time to reach for the flash.

Don't take this the wrong way Mark, but can the "flash if required" statement in your opening post be interpreted that you generally don't use flash at all? At Crufts you've been in a situation where the light levels are beyond the capability of your equipment using the available ambient lighting, but by introducing controlled lighting (flash or continuous) you could have produced a far better result with the same body/lens combination. The cost of good flash/lighting gear that would improve your photography under these conditions is going to be far less than the cost of a faster lens and better ISO response body that would be needed to up the quality whilst staying with available ambient lighting only.
 
Oh, and for aquarium photography the solution is often to use flash as well. There are some fish that it doesn't work with (guppys are far too sensitive and respond very badly to flash) but most are ok - and for those that are sensitive to flash using temporary additional continuous tank lighting is as effective. Off-camera flash coming from above the tank (and sometimes from the sides) can really give aquarium photography a dramatic/creative lift as well as a dramatic improvement in image quality.
 
Cheap Chinese Yongnuo flash from Amazon. Hell, get two and a couple of same brand remote triggers.
Some idiots may sneer at them but they are absolutely fine.
 
posiview said:
Hi, out of interest, why was this?
Click to expand...

Sorry, not sure what you mean ?

And for the record, I do have an on off camera flash, and that works fine for fish - see my flickr.

I didnt take my flash as I figured a lot of the shots would be out of range anyway.

I use Elements8 for PP.
 
Last edited:
Hertsman said:
Sorry, not sure what you mean ?

And for the record, I do have an on off camera flash, and that works fine for fish - see my flickr.

I didnt take my flash as I figured a lot of the shots would be out of range anyway.

I use Elements8 for PP.
Click to expand...

Just wondering why you under exposed.
 
Might be worth trying an 18-55 VR to see if the VR allows you to get away with slower shutter speeds. It's not a panacea and the lens isn't as sharp as the 18-70 but could be a relatively cheap solution. Have to agree that the D200 isn't a low light tool, although it's not bad in good light.
 
Im actually considering the Nikkor 35mm 1.8, what do we think?
 
I downloaded the 1st image- opened in Camera RAW- clicked the auto exposure button and got this



My guess is you're massively under exposing - and you CAN rescue these in Photoshop

Les :D
 
you can rescue them in PS. But it looks like the one Les rescued still has masses of issues (as a result of the rescue)
 
ghoti said:
Cheap Chinese Yongnuo flash from Amazon. Hell, get two and a couple of same brand remote triggers.
Some idiots may sneer at them but they are absolutely fine.
Click to expand...

until they blow and fry your camera circuitry - which has actually happened to me though 'fortunately' on a hired camera. (Thing about yongnuo and nissin is that Chinese quality control sucks so you get good ones and you get bad ones and you can't tell which you've got unless/until something goes wrong) For the money I'd rather get a man brand flash second hand.
 
I'm not sure what kind of metering mode you had set but it's under-exposed the shot as most people have already mentioned. If if you have a camera that can't really perform under low light conditions, if you had exposed correctly you would have had a better chance of pulling back in PP. The blanket might have been main issue with noise but the rest would have looked ok. I'm sure most dog owners would not appreciated a flash going off when they are trying to prep..
 
I think the solution the solution to your Crufts shots is simple, you shot at:
Aperturef/4.2
Focal Length40 mm

So why not use your 50mm 1.8- it's basically the same focal length but 2.5 stops faster?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top