AKeppler wrote:[quote
This shot is of a display at Boons Bay Island Bonsai Exhibit and is over 14 feet wide. Two 8 foot tables. I had to stand back nearly 20 feet and wait for people to move to capture my shot. 20 Feet ius a huge amount of space to take a picture of a bonsai display in a huge meeting hall with overhead incadesant lights nearly 20 feet above the floor.

There is virtually no barrel distortion in that picture while all elements of the picture are in focus and crisp with good color rendition. I think that is a huge shot.

Thanks, Al

This is a good example of what you photography guys go through to get "that shot". I can fully understand the passion involved in the technical aspects of photography more. That is one great shot Al, to my untrained eye. As for dear Harry's input, well, copyright springs to mind.

Ash

Oh don't get all pouty and cop an attitude.

Sorry. It reminded me of the old saying about how some people don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

I actually appreciate the effort you've put into this thread. I'm all about improving my own photography and I'm glad that you're giving back.

All of my posts weren't so much to dismantle anything you've said but to reframe it so that its universally applicable.

You can't shoot stuff in low light with the 18-55 nikon (a lens i have 2 of) not because its a short lens but because it quickly reaches the 5.6 side of its minimum aperture as you zoom out. The 18-200 has a much more open (lower number) aperture at the 55mm setting. Its not because the lens is longer that you're getting more light. Its because the widest allowable aperture available on the longer lens is wider within the range. Something to take away from the conversation is, if you want more light (and/or a shallow depth of field to separate your tree from a cluttered background) use a wide, low-number aperture rather than using a long lens.

The 18-200 has barrel distortion, and pincushion. Just check the link I provided earlier (to one of the most respected lens reviewers available.) Some point and shoots have noticeably more than it does. Luckily the 18-200's distortion is easily correctable in Photoshop. Not all nikkor lenses have barrel distortion, but then, not all of them have as wide a range as the 18-200 either. Its not a bad lens, but that range demands tradeoffs. Sadly, I haven't bothered to keep up with point and shoots that deal well with distortion (either pincushion or barrel) to point anyone interested to them.

Off-topic since this is for a higher-end budget but:
One thing that will universally improve photographs, be it with SLRs or point and shoots is with the addition of light, and light from multiple axes. Clamp lamps, fluorescents, halogens ...just use the same type of light all around.


Al, thanks for a great thread.

[quote="PeterW"]Thanks Al. I have a Canon Digital SLR 350D. The lens i use for these sort of shots is a 90-300 mm Canon lens. I have a small studio that i can just squeeze into (using this lens) the room is left over from dancing children who grew and shifted away. The room is about 7mtrs long x 4mtrs wide. I set up a table with screens around it at the far end, light outside that. I shoot on a tripod and use timer delay to take the shot. I have found (by perserverence) that the Av setting gives me the best results with the light set to tungstun and the ISO is 100. The pictures still come out quite dark and i will look into the bulbs that i am using to see if that helps. I dont like to change much as i really have little idea as to what they mean and how the situation needs for it. I really like the idea of point and shoot, but want better pictures then that.



Peter this a great setup you have here. I would love to hear/read what the buffs think of this. Especially Mr. Keppler.

Ash

Thanks Ash, i am interested in photography but am a lousy photographer! I am also interested in hearing what those how know could suggest to help me get better quality shots! Its really the end result of our work isnt it.

Regards
Peter

Hi Al,
Like you, I too love to take pictures of my trees, but I do all my shooting outside since I don't have room indoors to take them. It was my trees that got me started into photography, and sad to say They now compete with each other for my time. I have almost as much invested in cameras (5) and lenses, as I do in trees. I'm surprised I'm not divorced yet.

Anyway I won't bore you with the technical details, but it's actually the speed of the lens that allows you to get crisp clear pics at low light. You mentioned your 18-200mm lens, but you didn't mention what the widest apeture setting was. I thinking around 4.5 for $900. Now if you were to get that same size if in fact they make it, in 2.8 you would have a fantastic lens that would allow even more light, but you would probably have to pawn a few of your good routers in order to justify the price.
But then you probably already knew that if you knew what you were looking for when you purchased your DSLR. You didn't say which DSLR you bought.

I love shooting with my 70-200 and my 70-300mm mainly for blurring the background. These two pics will show you what I mean. believe it or not, that's an old wooden picket fence behind both subjects. Enjoy your shooting Al, just don't let it come between you and your trees like I did.
Thomas J.