With the Nikon D40 what would be the best set up for good pictures inside? It may give you a better understanding of how your camera "sees" light and what the non-auto world can do for you! Ken is an interesting character drawing lots of criticism and hate posting, but has some pretty good articles. He like I loved our D40's. That is a good overall setting to have no matter what shooting conditions. Camera will pick everything else in P mode.
|Genre:||Health and Food|
|Published (Last):||12 March 2004|
|PDF File Size:||12.6 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||9.12 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
If you use my settings file, this will also set your D's Image Comment and Copyright Info as I set my D, so be sure to set your own messages unless you want my name and address in your files. So I am confused. I followed to Load Settings. Now what? Are U1 and U2 set? How exactly does one change Comment and Copyright?
What menus? Using another person's settings is not a good idea. Especially KR's, who has some very specific ideas of what his photos should look like. You'll be better off going through every menu, using the user manual or even following KR's setup guide that's what I did when I got my D40 , and taking a picture after every change to see what this or that option does. This will let you learn the camera and tune it to your preferences, instead of relying on another person's vision.
Yes, i'm hoping you like [badly]vividly over-saturated images, as i believe this is Ken's preference. I dread to think how many new photographers are going to load this man's settings and walk around shooting hyper-saturated images without ever having experimented or thought about what they like in an image.
Meanwhile a good number of people will defend him and say these are great for the ordinary guy on the street, when in fact Nikon defaults would be much saner. Those settings are provided free of charge by someone who has gone to the trouble of setting up his camera the way HE likes it, and he is prepared to share his experience with the less adveturous.
No-one is obliged to try them, but for the ones who do, and do not like them, it is simple enough to restore the factory defaults.
In fact there are a lot more to those settings than just colour saturation. I would also be quite happy to try your settings if you offered them to me. I may not like them in the end, but I would not dread to think of you and other people who like your set up. I could think of much more dreadful things in life than any number of people however large that number may be using Ken Rockwell's free camera settings. I can't tell you if U1 and U2 are set because I've not tried his settings.
But to change the copyright info, refer to page of the manual. Ken's critics must see themselves as the self-appointed gatekeepers of photography, protecting the innocent from some dreadful fate they alone can recognise.
Very odd. I'm not likely to provide extreme settings and then through noteriety and misguided devotion have hundreds possibly thousands of users replicate them. My post may have played up the melodrama for effect but I don't think people using any set of camera settings, no matter how bad, is the most dreadful thing that could ever happen. I do however think it is unfortunate. I have very specific issues with Ken's writing and advice: He contradicts himself constantly. He misleads new camera users into selecting equipment that may not suite them, and discourages them from trying equipment and techniques that may help them grow and develop.
He is not at all scientifically rigorous in his evaluations and has given opinions on equipment he has never used. However I'm protecting no one from anything at all. I'm merely offering my point of view on an Internet message board. You're free to like KR. You're free to dial up your saturation and contrast to I'm still going to say 'ugh' every time I see a hypersaturated photo posted as an example of good photography. Equally, if there are people that, in the course of their own investigations, try Rockwell's settings and like them, then fair play to them.
I simply fail to see how any harm is being done here. If you see a website where the owner advocates people wearing cotton briefs on their heads, are you suddenly filled with dread for new underwear buyers? No, of course you're not, because on the main, people are sensible enough to make their own decisions. The OP didn't ask for a yet another debate on the merits of KR - he asked how to download the settings offered by KR to the custom settings on the D I'd like to know as well - out of curiosity more than anything else as I already have my preferred colour setup but I am waiting for KR's user guide for the D!
Can these be downloaded to D? I don't think so.. As to the OP's question about changing the comment and copyright, that was answered earlier by DiT:. This can't be the same Sammy Youssef who recently vowed he'd never ever reply to my defence of KR anymore.
Surely not! I'm sure that Sammy would be a man of his word. A man of honour. Assuming I'm replying to a "New Improved? You could carve out a whole career warning against web hosts with whom you disagree. Now why would anyone deliberately ignore that clear disclaimer? Never mention it. Unless of course it didn't fit the narrative of Ken being some dark and sinister force, out to screw up unsuspecting innocents. Oh, it's all so so serious, lol.
And from Ken's site you can just see he is The Dark One. Or is it that he is a decent, successful, family guy that sticks in the craw of the miserable?
Yes, New Sammy actually knows evil KR's malignant influence may " mislead new camera buyers ", and worse, " discourage them from trying" out other settings or techniques. Oh no. What hypnotic power! And all without one single reference from New Sammy. Can KR get any worse? Well, much worse. You see, New Sammy thinks KR doesn't run a "scientifically rigorous" laboratory. He probably means he doesn't control all the variables.
Tree trunks may move, leaves may flutter Ken only shoots in gales and all the innocents will be deceived. I rather like the field shots myself, I compare them with other sites, and shock, horror, the reviews seem remarkably consistent! Just how does he control those squirrels?! With a. However, I must get serious. KR does not give Rockwell reviews of equipment he has never tested.
That reflects extremely badly on the New Sammy, as it did on the Old Sammy. And again, no example is given. I'd been waiting for that.
But all you highly impressionable and unquestioning "newbies" don't you love that patronising term? Well, maybe look at his galleries. Then look at another gallery no, not mine, I've been ruined by Ken! I said I wouldn't reply to a particular thread and now somehow I'm not a man of my word because I discuss KR again?? The rest of your tirade is just a series of insults and a half baked attempt at sarcasm with just about zero content, certainly nothing new.
If you don't like what I have to say or don't agree, that's your right and your problem. Have fun. Ken who? Oh I know, he's the one who said 'Raw files are a waste of time because? I never use them' and 'With the new Nikon mm VR you can throw all your other lenses in the river'.
Camera setting are purely personal or as in my case to adjust so the camera records accurately, based on differing conditions. This, I have been told, is 'wrong' and not 'creative' and 'soooooooo twen. Each to their own I am an avid fan of KR's in the sense that I read his reviews and find them very helpful indeed.
I also conduct my own tests as I've explained in other responses on other threads, and I suspect that most of my friends find me a bloody pedant when it comes to product comparisons and performance. I love his lens' reviews.. I really do find them helpful.. I've cross-checked my tests against his, and generally they agree, across a selection of Canon and Nikon primes and teles..
I don't have any of the kit lenses. I have an mmf3. I bought it against other peoples advice and I noticed some pretty ordinary reviews. I have found it extremely good, and a liberating tool. Sure its not as distortion free as the mmf2. KR's test reflected my experience directly. And so it has been for every one of the Nikkors I have 50mmf1. I've also tested some Canon L series lenses, and got similar results.
Nikon D40 Digital SLR
Considering photos are a large part of my website and main method for recording parts of my experiences in Thailand and elsewhere , I decided I would put some more effort into the quality of photos. First step although certainly not the main step , was to get a new camera. My Canon IXUS 50 is working well after a Baht repair job in , but does not produce great quality pics maybe its the user? After talking to friends and reading a bunch of online reviews, I decided to go for a digital SLR, limiting my choice to the entry level Canon or Nikon cameras. However, the older models EOS and D40 are still on sale, and of course the newer models are arriving shortly e. I was going to get one of the current models, which were priced around Baht , until Brenton pointed me to Ken Rockwell's site, which strongly recommended selecting the older Nikon D40, over the D40X note, some people think Ken is a little too enthusiastic about Nikon. With this advice, I decided on the D
- ROSU SI NEGRU-STENDHAL PDF
- MALI PRINC ANTOINE DE SAINT EXUPERY PDF
- COMMUNICATION NETWORKS ALBERTO LEON GARCIA AND INDRA WIDJAJA PDF
- HIPPOBROMA LONGIFLORA PDF
- ANTOINE DE CAUNES MAGMA PDF
- LICHU CHOR PDF
- LIVRO A VERDADE DA VIDA MASAHARU TANIGUCHI PDF
- HYPNOSIS THE APPLICATION OF IDEOMOTOR TECHNIQUES PDF
- BLUE OCEAN STRATEGY BY W.CHAN KIM AND RENEE MAUBORGNE PDF