Sounds like you're either too close to the subject or the camera can't find anything to focus on. All lenses have a minimum focal distance, which means you need to be that far away, at least, in order for the lens to properly focus on the subject.

 

yeah, it was a hard day to shoot. it was partly cloudy and the sun kept popping out for 15 seconds then it would get dark again.

 

 

Wtf, the min aperture for this 70-300mm lens is supposed to be F/22, but I can set it to F/45.

 

^Sounds like an error. Probably need to get the contacts nice and seated.

 

I've been messing around a bit more with the advise you guys have been giving me.

What do you think?

 

Lighting and WB is good. Try a more creative angle and background like this for example:



That's the 2nd pic I ever took with a DSLR.

 

Haha, very nice for a 2nd picture.

But yeah, I know what your saying, I was just sitting down and wasn't thinking about the background and angles at the moment, ha.

 

is that second picture taken on the instruction manual? looks good buddy, i like the second one, its got soft lighting but nice contrast. sharp focus. two thumbs up for taking a ride on the improvement train. whoo whoo!

 

And now that I know how to use PS...



Quick re-edit. Maybe one day I can stick with a logo. And yeah that's the D40 manual.

 

w/ the 300mm you can just start to make out Marburry's stupid tattoo on his head...

 

Jon, how do you add that logo in your pictures?

 

I just create it in its own PSD then drag it onto the pics as I edit them.

 

Whaaat?!
Where'd your logo go in black and white one?
LOL

 

Lol I did a ninja edit and moved it to the upper left corner. I like to make it the least distracting as possible.

 

Holy *****! LOL!
I seriously had to bring the computer like 5 inches from my face to see that!

 

it's not about the ability to capture what you wanted the first time. it's about making the photo into how it looked through your eyes in real life, not digital. i've taken many photos of something that didn't come out as colorful in the picture as it was in real life. a little contrast, sharpening, saturation is very necessary in post-processing (depending on what's required) and as long as it isn't taken to an unreal degree it shouldn't be discouraged or thought of as something that couldn't be gotten the first time.

i guess what im saying is, a light amount of post processing to give a photo life as it was shouldn't be discredited as inability of the photographer. human vision and digital vision seem to be like two different languages...so to speak... it's almost always going to take SOME post-processing if you want to convert digital into real life as it was. at least that is what i have noticed so far.

it should also be noted that this doesn't go for the digital post-processing techniques that are obviously artistic and not made to look real such as selective color, high dynamic range, lomography imitations, etc...

 

Haha it's more noticeable full size. I can't wait until tomorrow. I ordered a grip for my camera along with some more stuff.

 

Ok, apparently it can go up to F/45 lol.

Just tested it out and there is a slight difference between f/22 and f/45, not much, but it's there. Not like I'd ever need f/45 or I'd ever have enough light for it lol.

 

Does it have macro mode?