Not sure I get your meaning here - do you mean when you extend the centre column it doesn't go up vertically, but often has a lean to it?

If so, I would recommend a new tripod. Preferebaly one that's tall enough to use without raising the centre column (unless you really need to).

Sorry if I've got the wrong end of the stick though.

Dan

Well I use one just about all the time for landscapes. I think I have a pretty good eye for levels, but I prefer to get it spot on. I use a ball head, and this doesn't have a level built in.

I also find it absolutely vital if I'm doing a panoramic, as this may be a dozen images merged together. The slightest mistake with getting the camera level makes a huge difference once you've panned through 120 degrees or so.

"...it is amazing how accurate, in most cases, the eye/brain is at detecting horizontal or vertical."

The spirit level means you don't have to take a step back, and it's accurate in all cases, so I prefer that method.

Dan

Matt's avatar? :

Dan

Gives it a cross-processed look which suits these shot I reckon.

Any one of these could have won the Self Portrait theme in the weekly competition a few months back. Well done.

Dan

Well, I have to say I agree with him, because I read it as saying that you need a camera capable of producing the results you want. And if that means there's a certain amount of discussion to decide what camera/lens is best for a particular job (and there are these exact discussions on this forum), then all well and good.

For instance, I have a friend who has a particular interest in Kingfishers at the moment (well, for the last year or so). He had certain images in mind, and so he upgraded his Canon 10D to whatever model has 10 frames per second shooting, as he was missing shots before due to the lower frame rate. He's produced some superb photos.

I'm sure he could get excellent photos of the Kingfishers with a Lomo or whatever, but they wouldn't be the photos he was wanting - he had a vision, and chose the right tool for the job.

This is true for all types of photography. There are cameras and lenses that are better suited to some areas of photography than others. That's why there are different lenses and cameras to choose from. Otherwise all cameras would be the same, surely?

Okay, I've just read the Ken Rockwell piece, and although I agree with some aspects of what he said, I think he's being far to general. I still think you're far better off having equipment that gives you the quality and results that you want. If you're happy with a lo-res shot from a cameraphone, so be it, but I wouldn't be - I'd be kicking myself that I didn't have a 'proper' camera with me.

Dan

Still my guess. I reckon there's a bit of a highlight running round the top of the head which is then showing magenta-ish.

However, it could be from the windowlight, and be a white balance issue. If the walls/carpets are a very warm colour (yellow/orange) then this could warm up the colour of the light for most of the pic, other than that falling directly onto the top of the head, which would have a strong blue cast assuming the sky was blue (bit hard to tell from the reflection in the dog's head). Setting the white balance for the warm coloured light could then make the bluer light go a bit purply.

Dan

I would say (everyone's got their own opinion ) that this is due to 'Longitudinal Chromatic Aberrations', where out of focus areas in front and behind the subject show magenta or green hues.

It's more pronounced at larger apertures - check your pics to see if the areas that look purply are out of focus, in fact probably in front of the focus point.

Here's an example from my FA50mm 1.4, at f/1.7:




Notice the green areas on the candlestick, especially down the side of the wax runs.

But as the others say, it could well be white balance probs.

Dan

'Mini-beasts' is the preferred term these days.

Dan

Mike, take note!

http://nedbunnell.blogspot.com/2008/03/2008-pentaxian-award.html



Dan

Dan