Critique... Just got D40.

[Creative One]

Just got my first DSLR camera, and it happens to be a D40.

This picture was taken fairly close, and has had no other editing, except for blurring the ID tag on him.

If you could give some tips, suggestions, and some nitty picky things you would of done differently that would be great.

Remember, it was the first day I got the camera, and have had no experiance with photography since. (Except for the VERY basic point and shoot)

Thanks.


PS; His name is Max.

 

[fr4c]

I would love to critique... but I dont see anything

EDIT: Beat me to it, very nice photo. Are you using the kit lens that came with it?

 

[GoCubsGo]

Your image tag is wrong and your photo isn't showing.

 

[Creative One]

Working on it, but had the link there before you posted Anyways, Yes its the one that came with it. (18-55)

 

[Abstract]

Why did you crop the photo so that it's so long?


Anyway, the background is oversaturated. Try reducing the exposure a bit, and increase the brightness slightly in order to compensate. Sometimes it helps, but sometimes it won't help at all. Just try it anyway.

And while some may disagree with me, everything but the dog is slightly overexposed. You can tell from the background, the person's hand, and the black jacket. The black jacket should look blacker. That's why the have exposure compensation (+/-) on cameras, although I'm not sure if it would have mattered here anyway.

 

[mkrishnan]

Working on it, but had the link there before you posted Anyways, Yes its the one that came with it. (18-55)

If your image URL is...

http://gallery.me.com/wyatt.mcparland/100114/DSC_0015/web.jpg

Then you would inline the image like this:

[img]http://gallery.me.com/wyatt.mcparland/100114/DSC_0015/web.jpg[/img]

I got that URL by right clicking on the image and then it came up with this:

http://gallery.me.com/wyatt.mcparland/100114/DSC_0015/web.jpg?ver=12475375740003

I just deleted the ? and everything after it.

 

[Creative One]

If your image URL is...

http://gallery.me.com/wyatt.mcparland/100114/DSC_0015/web.jpg

Then you would inline the image like this:

[img]http://gallery.me.com/wyatt.mcparland/100114/DSC_0015/web.jpg[/img]

I got that URL by right clicking on the image and then it came up with this:

http://gallery.me.com/wyatt.mcparland/100114/DSC_0015/web.jpg?ver=12475375740003

I just deleted the ? and everything after it.

Thanks, Fixed.

 

[mkrishnan]

Also since you're new (sounds like really new?) to photography, it might help if you took more pictures (yeah, sounds obvious). But more specifically, if you pick something you'd like to photograph, like your pet, then take several shots. Many even. Then don't just post the one you think is the best, but pick out a few that you think are reasonably good by your standards, and put them all up. That way, people can tell you not only what's right or wrong about the one picture, but also which pictures they like better and why. I think it helps.

 

[Creative One]

Also since you're new (sounds like really new?) to photography, it might help if you took more pictures (yeah, sounds obvious). But more specifically, if you pick something you'd like to photograph, like your pet, then take several shots. Many even. Then don't just post the one you think is the best, but pick out a few that you think are reasonably good by your standards, and put them all up. That way, people can tell you not only what's right or wrong about the one picture, but also which pictures they like better and why. I think it helps.

Would I create a new thread for that, or edit the existing? Not too new. But new with DSLR. . . . For a 14 year old, I'm alright

 

[Creative One]

Also, here is a gallery with a few more...

http://gallery.me.com/wyatt.mcparland#100122

 

[mkrishnan]

Would I create a new thread for that, or edit the existing? Not too new. But new with DSLR. . . . For a 14 year old, I'm alright

You can just post them here.

Also it looks like, from the EXIF, the shot was taken at 18mm. Are you specifically looking to induce some wide-angle distortion, or do you have another specific reason for that? If you don't, try to stick somewhere in the long end of your lens (e.g around 50mm) when taking anything that loosely qualifies as a "portrait."

 

[Creative One]

Well actually, I was thinking of upgrading to a 70 - 300mm lens. That would only be for zooming correct? Or could it stand as my full-time lens? Its $500 at Cavalcade (Only camera place in town)

 

[mkrishnan]

There's a good school of people who do portraiture (I'm using the term loosely, but since all your photos are close-ups of dogs, that's more or less what they become) at 80-100mm... Lots of people do use lenses with that kind of range pretty much all the time without bothering to swap.

Learning how to use the lens you have is probably also good too -- there's a very limited extent to which better glass can make you a better photographer.

 

[Demosthenes X]

50mm is roughly equivalent to a "normal" shot with no zoom (hence mkrishnan's suggestion to shoot at the higher end of your zoom range). 70-200 would be roughly equivalent to 1.5x - 4x magnification.

Personally, I wouldn't invest in lenses until you know what you want to shoot. A 70-200 will not be very good for landscapes, for example, but great for sports (assuming it's fast enough). Play with the kit lens until you're comfortable and know what sort of photos you like - there's a reason manufacturers use 18-55 in the kit.

 

[compuwar]

A 70-200 will not be very good for landscapes, for example, but great for sports (assuming it's fast enough).

Actually, 200mm is too short for most sports. Most sports photographers shoot with a 300mm f/2.8 prime.

 

[mkrishnan]

ModNote: Split posts are in a new thread here.