Nikon D70 and cropping photos

[RachelleFav]

Thanks. I think I need better software but I'm still in need of a flash too. Pictures still aren't coming out as good as I'd like them too. So I need to find software with a RAW converter then. My new system will have a gig of ram. I have 128 now! Can you believe it. It's awful how slow it is with the photo program.

[RachelleFav]

I think ISO is typically set at 400. I'll move it down to 200...good idea. I had been bringing my pics to Wal-Mart. I had changed from them with my film camera and got much better results. I had used them again for the digitals because they had the system there to print them from disk. Not much better. I've given them three shots. I just uploaded some online to get printed. I'll check ofoto.com next time. I'm going to try a few out. Even when I had my 1 megapixel digital my prints from photoworks weren't that bad. I'll let y'all know if they are any better. I love my digital camera...being able to take a million pictures is great and I've learned so much more quickly than with my film camera. The pics just aren't the same though. I wish I could get closer. All of my shots are of people so I think the fact that it's digital is obvious.

[Todd Patten]

The pics just aren't the same though. I wish I could get closer. All of my shots are of people so I think the fact that it's digital is obvious.

This confuses me a bit. If you have the D70, at 6.3 mega-pixels the quality should be equal to and possibly even surpase 35mm film. How is it obvious that the photo's are digital? I find mine to be very sharp and very crisp. When I have them printed, the comment I get is, "Those are from a digital camera?!?"

If you want to get closer to the subjects, Nikon has a very affordable 70-300 G lense -- particularly if you find a photo shop on ebay. The 70-300 ED lense is a bit more expensive, but by all accounts the glass is exceptional with very little loss at the edges regardless of what stop you are using.

[RachelleFav]

what I am doing! It seems my first round of photos came out better than more recent ones. I'm not sure what is going wrong. Did you see the picture I posted earlier in this message. You can see what I mean. What settings do you typically have your camera on? What flash are you using? I think my flash may be part of the problem but I am typically going with default settings. I have it set to large and fine jpeg shots. I need to see what my last round of pictures look like when I get them in a few days. Not sure what to do from here. Thanks for the efoto link. I checked it out and can't wait to use them next time. I like the Kodak Perfect Touch processing. Maybe that will help me!

[another view]

OK, maybe I don't know when to quit - but...

Take a look at the shots in this viewfinder thread: Some NYC snaps...

I know Charles shoots both film & digital but knew these were digital before I read that they were. Digital does have a different look to it. This is even more true of digital P&S cameras (as this one is) because typically DSLR's don't do that much "work" to the image - it's up to you. Further opportunities for creativity, but more learning curve. I'm not picking on Charles, he's an incredible photographer and a valuable addition here.

A telephoto zoom might be a good thing to have, but I'm going to disagree that it's the best way to get closer. Try moving in closer - it's not the same thing once again. There's a great quote from years ago which I wish now I knew exactly, but something like "If I can't feel your pictures then you're not close enough!". Anyway, you get the point...

P.S. I regularly use ISO800 on my Fuji with great results - but only when necessary. Don't know specifically about the D70 but at least ISO400 should be fine. You will start to see "noise" which looks like grain - more in higher speeds, just like film.

[RachelleFav]

I appreciate your advice. I agree that digital look digital...wish it didn't though I think I have lots of room to improve just not quite sure how. I notice in my digital pictures that the background images taken are all crisp and have tons of detail. It's the people portion of the picture that I'm not happy with. How can this be? Could the fact that I never have a still subject have a lot to do with it? I found a setting on the camera yesterday when reading again where you can optimize images to be normal, sharp, vivid, portrait, soft, directprint, landscape or custom. I am going to check those things out and then check out RAW when I get my new system. Thanks again for all of your help.

[another view]

Could the fact that I never have a still subject have a lot to do with it?

Were you getting shots like that on film? I don't think that is a film/digital thing - maybe a matter of learning the new camera, it's just that this one happens to be digital.

The settings that you mention are probably a good place to start with - this will shorten the learning curve a little. Think of it as "automatic Photoshop" but it can't really be undone later. Down the road, you might not use these - or at least not all the time - when you get more familiar with how you want to do things in Photoshop. The advantage is that it's very quick and easy but the disadvantage is the lack of flexibility. Try it, it might work for you. Like I said before, there's a lot of ways to do the same thing and it's the end result that counts.

Glad to help - I feel partly responsible for getting you into this mess !

[RachelleFav]

Hey...you did get me into this mess didn't you??? Just joking!!! I think I was having some issues on film too. I think I should blame it on my kids not keeping still for me! I'm going to work with those settings and need to work on getting a compatible flash and better software. Whew...the list is growing!!! Good thing is that I am just messing around with the camera and I can practice all I want so I'm going to keep at it. Once I get my faster computer it should make it not such a pain to look at what I've done and figure out what to do. Thanks for all your advice.