Nikon AF-S 400mm/F2.8

[ANILE8]

All shot with Nikon D2HS + Nikon AF-S 400mm/F2.8.

This lens is one of my two favorite and it's so versatile, I use it for everything from fashion, portraits, wildlife and or course sports.

[ANILE8]

Some motorsport pictures with this legendary lens.



























All taken with Nikon D2HS Body + Nikon AF-S 400mm/F2.8 Super Telephoto Lens + Nikon 52mm C-PL1L Circular Polarizer + Nikon TC-14E Teleconverter

[scollins]

NICE! You've got quite a lot of money invested in equipment, so clearly this isn't a hobby for you, but a profession.

[radiantm3]

How come you don't color correct your images at all? They would look 5x better.

[ANILE8]

Your right the WB has not been corrected, the lighting conditions were different from shooting for over 8 hours that day.

Going from the early over cast morning to the sunny late afternoon thats pretty much exactly as they looked through the view finder.

I shoot RAW and can always change the WB setting later but with over 400 pictures that day it's a lot of work.

Most of my shots are un-edited and straight off the CF Card.

Thanks for looking and posting.

[scollins]

Originally Posted by ANILE8

I shoot RAW and can always change the WB setting later but with over 400 pictures that day it's a lot of work.

Most of my shots are un-edited and straight off the CF Card.

Thanks for looking and posting.

Here is something I've been wondering about: Does shooting in RAW make for lazier photographers at the time of the shot? Clearly, doing post processing takes a lot of time, but I see lots of references to "fixing" images later. Aren't most DSLR bodies capable of shooting in the right WB setting?

I guess I'm still just thinking of the film days when there wasn't a whole lot of post processing options, and you either got the settings right at the time of the shot, or you didn't get the shot.

I'm not casting dispersions at people who do a lot of post processing, I'm just wondering if more attention is being paid to post processing instead of trying to fully understand the conditions at the time of the shot?

[ANILE8]

Originally Posted by scollins

Here is something I've been wondering about: Does shooting in RAW make for lazier photographers at the time of the shot? Clearly, doing post processing takes a lot of time, but I see lots of references to "fixing" images later. Aren't most DSLR bodies capable of shooting in the right WB setting?

I guess I'm still just thinking of the film days when there wasn't a whole lot of post processing options, and you either got the settings right at the time of the shot, or you didn't get the shot.

I'm not casting dispersions at people who do a lot of post processing, I'm just wondering if more attention is being paid to post processing instead of trying to fully understand the conditions at the time of the shot?

I prefer to think of RAW as a digital negative. With a RAW file you always have in your archives what the digital sensor sees, not what settings you set at the time of the shot and the camera processed.

Film was the same. You may think otherwise if you never processed the slide film or negative film yourself and just accepted what your photo lab gave you back which often is way off what it should be.

I like RAW because I print most of my work at up to 20"x30" and the quality I get in RAW is better than JPEG. Why not shoot RAW as digital storage is so cheap today. Yes you also have more scope to adjust images with RAW than JPEG later if you require in post processing but I see that as only possibly a good thing.

Auto WB on Nikon D-SLR's is very good and it is only that I posted pictures taken at different times of the day in one thread that a variation can be obviously seen. However distracting, that was how the natural lighting conditions looked at the time I was shooting. If I want them to look different, it's not hard to change.

[ANILE8]

Originally Posted by scollins

NICE! You've got quite a lot of money invested in equipment, so clearly this isn't a hobby for you, but a profession.

Hi Scott,

Then that would be an incorrect assumption. I have a business that has nothing to do with photography.

I am certainly not a professional photographer, it is purely a hobby. I get a lot of enjoyment from going to different events, meeting new models and traveling to new places and shooting.

I am very happily single, so my camera kit might be more extensive then someone with more family commitments.

[scollins]

Originally Posted by ANILE8

I prefer to think of RAW as a digital negative. With a RAW file you always have in your archives what the digital sensor sees, not what settings you set at the time of the shot and the camera processed.

Film was the same. You may think otherwise if you never processed the slide film or negative film yourself and just accepted what your photo lab gave you back which often is way off what it should be.

I like RAW because I print most of my work at up to 20"x30" and the quality I get in RAW is better than JPEG. Why not shoot RAW as digital storage is so cheap today. Yes you also have more scope to adjust images with RAW than JPEG later if you require in post processing but I see that as only possibly a good thing.

Good to know. I guess I hadn't considered the idea of RAW being like a film negative. I did do some dark room work in high school, and some slide work in college, but that was a long time ago. I guess instead of using different chemicals, soak times, etc. we are now using computers to achieve the same results.

Originally Posted by ANILE8

Hi Scott,

Then that would be an incorrect assumption. I have a business that has nothing to do with photography.

I am certainly not a professional photographer, it is purely a hobby. I get a lot of enjoyment from going to different events, meeting new models and traveling to new places and shooting.

I am very happily single, so my camera kit might be more extensive then someone with more family commitments.

Yes, having a family sure puts a crimp on the "disposable income" available for hobbies and passions. But when I think about it, I can understand it actually. I've got tens of thousands of dollars wrapped up in my other passion (firearms.) I don't think much about a rifle setup costing $6,000, while others think that spending more than $500 is crazy (or any money at all for some people!)

I just figured from the quality of your shots, you were making some money with them!

[Year's_End]

Those are some fucking crisp shots. I'm not sure what your position is on post processing, but your pics are prime for some editing (in a good way!).

[ANILE8]

Originally Posted by Bimmer Loyalist

Those are some fucking crisp shots. I'm not sure what your position is on post processing, but your pics are prime for some editing (in a good way!).

I don't like post processing much and try to avoid it as I only have a very basic photoshop skill level.

Most of my images are straight off the CF card with in camera sharpening and tone levels pre-set. This lens is very sharp, no question.

The first time I got this lens and up-loaded the files onto my monitor I nearly fell backwards off my chair.

From using Nikon's 70-200mm/F2.8 and the 200-400mm/F4.0 the quality difference was insane.

The quality of images from all the Nikon super telephoto lenses make you redefine what you consider sharp is.

None of Nikon's zooms measure up in terms of image quality when compared to their 200mm, 300mm, 400mm, 500mm and 600mm prime lenses.

[radiantm3]

Originally Posted by ANILE8

I don't like post processing much and try to avoid it as I only have a very basic photoshop skill level.

Practice. Your images are superb. Color correction is all that's needed to really take them to the next level. You don't even need photoshop. Aperture or Lightroom would have plenty of power/ease of use to process the images. I attempted to remove the color cast as an example (hope you don't mind). Of course there's only so much I can do without the raw files or not having been there to see what was shot with my own eyes, but you get the idea. Attached a before and after.

[ANILE8]

That sure is a huge improvement.

Much more impact and slam.

I must remember to do color correction more carefully in post.

Thanks for helping.