Back

[Lava Lamp]

Thanks in advance for your comments, critiques, and suggestions.

Tech specs: Nikon D700 with 70-200mm f/2.8. Settings: ISO 400, f/8, 1/800 shutter.

[Old Timer]

Very nice! I would have like to have the rest of her legs and feet in the frame, but the upper part of the body does tell the story. I hope you have more of these and will also post in the sports forum.

[SmartWombat]

What he said, particularly about the sports forum

I would like to see more bottom right, so include the legs, and maybe crop from the left.
Because of the angle you shot from there is a nice curve from bottom right up to the hand, which makes me want to do a more diagonal composition and move her face from the centre to the left a bit.

[Shebang]

What he said, particularly about the sports forum

I would like to see more bottom right, so include the legs, and maybe crop from the left.
Because of the angle you shot from there is a nice curve from bottom right up to the hand, which makes me want to do a more diagonal composition and move her face from the centre to the left a bit.

SmartWombat, you're the man. I looked, left, and looked again. I knew there was something but I couldn't figure out what it was. SW articulated the swirling thoughts in my head. If I were going to nitpick, I would like her face as sharp as those water splashes, and the reflections in her goggles are a wee bit distracting. Those are all really nitty pics - I'd be estactic if that came out of my camera.

[chaman]

I really dont mind the legs much but would have loved to see more contrast in the water's texture with more detail over those fat droplets and rivulets created by the arm stroke...was this outdoor or indoors?

[daq7]

I got not much to add. I would darken the midrange for dramatic effect, but that is me. The shot is quite good.

[GB1]

Lava, More like Front (angle). It's a decent shot that she will like, but perhaps a little too straightforward to be an artsy shot. A bit too tonally even maybe too; I'd up the contrast and see if that adds a little punch.

How do you like your D700?

G

[Lava Lamp]

Thank you for all the comments.

I would like to see more bottom right, so include the legs, and maybe crop from the left. Because of the angle you shot from there is a nice curve from bottom right up to the hand, which makes me want to do a more diagonal composition and move her face from the centre to the left a bit.

As I recall, this one was cropped a bit. The rest of the legs didn't add much - they are obscured underwater. I also went for the centered compostion, which I don't normally do, 'cause I though the hand should point up through the center of the photo. You make a good point, though. Swim season is coming up again and I'll try some like you suggest.

I really dont mind the legs much but would have loved to see more contrast in the water's texture with more detail over those fat droplets and rivulets created by the arm stroke...was this outdoor or indoors?

This was outodoors. I've actually blown up this photo to 16 x 20 and printed it on metallic paper, which really works well with the water. At that size, you see all the detail. Now that you point it out, I see how much detail was lost in resizing it here.

Lava, More like Front (angle). It's a decent shot that she will like, but perhaps a little too straightforward to be an artsy shot. A bit too tonally even maybe too; I'd up the contrast and see if that adds a little punch.

How do you like your D700?

G

I'll put up a "front" picture in a moment. I really like the D700. I've owned a D70, D40, D50, and D200. The difference between the D700 and D200 in improved image quality is much greater than I've seen between any other two cameras I've had -- even the D70 vs. D200. The D700 is also much better than anything else I've owned in low light. Previously, I shot at IS0 800 max. With the D700, I feel comfortable up to ISO 3200 and occassionally use ISO 6400.

The downside for the D700 aside from cost, is the crop factor. If you shoot much faraway stuff (like me) your 300mm lens is now just a 300mm, not the equivalent of a 450mm. For that reason, I think I'll always keep both an FX and DX camera.

Again, thanks all.

[GB1]

I really like the D700. I've owned a D70, D40, D50, and D200. The difference between the D700 and D200 in improved image quality of the D700 vs. the D200 is much greater than I've seen between any other two cameras I've had -- even the D70 vs. D200. The D700 is also much better than anything else I've owned in low light. Previously, I shot at IS0 800 max. With the D700, I feel comfortable up to ISO 3200 and occassionally use ISO 6400.

The downside for the D700 aside from cost, is the crop factor. If you shoot much faraway stuff (like me) your 300mm lens is now just a 300mm, not the equivalent of a 450mm. For that reason, I think I'll always keep both an FX and DX camera.

Thanks Lava. I am mostly a landscape photographer and have found that most of my pix look best in the widest angle I have, so I really think the FX format is best for me. This is one of the reasons that I still shoot with my F100 on occasion. Yes, someone told me that his (I think) D90 was such a jump in picture quality over his D40 that it was shocking, esp in the shadows. Appears they're really improving the dynamic range on the newer cameras!

G

[armando_m]

Probably shoot with a polarizer and reduce the reflections