Any photographers in here?

[FlyinHawaiian]

this one was uploaded to photobucket so it looks kinda blurry but not bad (i think) for my first time with a DSLR and my first time taking pics of people.

Its a Nikon d40 with the kit lens (18-55)
http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee141/2006MS6/DSC_0183.jpg[IMG]

how could i fix the over exposed water in the background though?[/QUOTE]

She's a cutie!!

But as to fixing an overexposed background, you might want to invest in a ND graduated filter. Its half tinted so bright backgrounds, such as skies or buildings (in this case surf) are toned down and somewhat properly exposed. Hard to fix a photo after its been taken, but as mentioned before, just try and blend the two photos together...

 

[judman13]

Split ND really wouldn't have helped that. The split is way to irregular in this case. Being more conscious of your background and how the camera was metering the exposure are the only things that can really help. Need more light on the subjects (such as flash or some sort of reflective surface) to use a higher shutter speed so the exposure of the foreground more closely matches that of the background.

Of course you can always shoot RAW and post process, but most people are scared of raw and photoshop...unless they just want to boost contrast and completely ruin pictures.

 

[sleeper3]

us plus jeep by robertwsimpson, on Flickr

 

[oaklandopen]

Very nice jeep, my wife would be teh jealous

As for the pic, I might have liked it better if you were both in front of the door and the jeep's whole front fascia was in view

 

[sleeper3]

thanks

 

[sleeper3]

here it is without us blocking the view


Jeep at Okeeheelee by robertwsimpson, on Flickr

 

[lyonsroar]

If you have a CS version of photoshop then it comes with a raw handler that allows for quick adjustments before you take it into the actual program. Lightroom handles raw as well.

I still recommend getting it right in the camera first. Less time post processing and less frustration.

I dodn't know Photoshop could do RAW... good to know.

I try to get the WB close in camera so I can get an accurate representation on the LCD screen, but when I'm shooting RAW I have to open the pic in LR anway and it takes like 3 seconds to change WB so I don't worry about it.

 

[judman13]

Unless your computers monitor is calibrated the camera's LCD is actually better.

(this is an assumption)

 

[Wagonbacker9]

Unless your computers monitor is calibrated the camera's LCD is actually better.

(this is an assumption)

Trying to look at pics on a 1.5" screen, I have to disagree. for the sake of white balance, this may be true... but it sure isn't useful.

 

[mixylplik3]

Trying to look at pics on a 1.5" screen, I have to disagree. for the sake of white balance, this may be true... but it sure isn't useful.

The histogram is your friend!

 

[sleeper3]

I used to hate the LCD, but the 50d's LCD is amazing.


Also, the histogram is your friend!

 

[lyonsroar]

Unless your computers monitor is calibrated the camera's LCD is actually better.

(this is an assumption)

Tell you the truth I really haven't noticed a big difference in my images moving from computer to computer. I've seen my pics on three different monitors and they all look pretty much the same. Even printing them out there's not a big enough difference that I can tell.

 

[Protege03ak46]

my favorite thing in the world by Protege03ak46, on Flickr

 

[oaklandopen]

^^^So I'm guessing dr pepper is part of your favs....all blurry 'n stuff

 

[Rosshole]

Yo, Protege03AK46, go back into photoshop and adjust that White Balance!

 

[blynd_spy]

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/blyndspy/5220265178/" title="DSC04578-1-1-1-2 by blyndspy, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4089/5220265178_7da5dd3a47_b.jpg" width="700" height="454" alt="DSC04578-1-1-1-2" /></a>

 

[sleeper3]

whoa nice!

UV filter?

 

[sleeper3]

oh nm on second glance, it looks like snow. We don't have that stuff here.

 

[blynd_spy]

lol! thanks, and yep that is snow. about five inches fell in the six hours i was out. did you mean IR filter? but eitherway, no, used a ND400 and CPL but the ND400 makes the pictures have a deep blue tint that even at a WB of 9900 is a hassle to correct so i made it monotone.

 

[sleeper3]

oops yes I meant IR.