I love Howard. He also liked my work.
[Sticky] Digital Camera FAQ
226,879 Views |
3079 Replies |
Last: 11 yr ago by Ag CPA
despite not really learning anything new (except for how to develop B&W film)....that class is one of my favorites that I have taken. Probably because it was actually a fun class to go to and do the work for....much better than science classes.
Guitar - what is your advice on becoming a second (or third) shooter at a wedding? I unwisely decided to do a huge wedding with a friend of mine a few months back without any wedding experience. Luckily the images turned out great. But there was a lot of stuff that could have gone better with some more experience. Any advice?
If you'd like you can see some of my images here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ericchristensen/sets/72157607441207471/
If you'd like you can see some of my images here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ericchristensen/sets/72157607441207471/
quote:
what is your advice on becoming a second (or third) shooter at a wedding?
My suggestion is to look for wedding photographers in your area whose work you really like and whose style you would like to be similar to.
Then contact them and talk to them. They will probably want to get to know you fairly well before they let you go on a shoot, because if you act like a jackass at a wedding I am getting paid for, it reflects badly on me. They will probably let you go on an engagement or bridal shoot first to see how you work.
Then they may let you tagalong for a wedding. If you tagalong, you are shooting for free, but you have portfolio shots you can use for your portfolio and you give the photographer copies of your shots as a thanks for giving you the opportunity to shoot that wedding with him.
Make sure you are paying attention to how they do things and you can really learn a lot. I shoot with lots of friends that have differing styles as me to broaden my style.
Then depending on how you conduct yourself and how good your images are, the guy may hire you to be a second or third shooter. This you will get paid for, and again you can use the images for portfolio and he gets copies as well.
I took a look at the wedding you do, I actually knew Bethany when I lived in College Station, although she knew everyone.
But the most important thing is to keep shooting and keep looking for critiques. Also, look at other people's photography on forums like prophotogs, fredmiranda and TexasPhotoForum and look at the critiques other people give them.
I think I am going to set up an Amazon list of books I recommend for photographers, so look at that. I have read dozens of books and constantly read a lot of magazines (mainly British photography magazines) which really help keep me on the edge of photography and keep me thinking about what I can change and what I can do to stay fresh and keep taking great pics.
Guitar- it was actually Wayne Smith.
It's not so much a rich grandma, as it is I'm not going to be paying rent after this year period, and probably have a 20$ an hour job lined up. Between a gift from a grandmother(an acre of her 5 acre place) at my HS graduation, and money I have set aside, I own my own property....soon to be with a home of some variety. I'm really not concerned about the profit I could potentially turn as I am what I'm getting....
It's not so much a rich grandma, as it is I'm not going to be paying rent after this year period, and probably have a 20$ an hour job lined up. Between a gift from a grandmother(an acre of her 5 acre place) at my HS graduation, and money I have set aside, I own my own property....soon to be with a home of some variety. I'm really not concerned about the profit I could potentially turn as I am what I'm getting....
quote:
Grandma and baby(and yes I know it violates the rule of thirds, there is no effective way to crop it and keep the spirit and feel of the photo intact IMO)
"rule of thirds" please, that 'rule' is for beginners.
I took Wayne Smith for Nautical Archeology. He used to go to Sweet Eugenes all the time when I worked there and he played drums with his jazz band Big Apple Trio, which is why I took his class.
Even if you had no other bills, at $20/hr, assuming you take home $15, just a 1D3 body will cost you almost two month's salary.
I think you are making a pretty big mistake in how you are going about all this. I can only assume your silence on types of business you have already done or business ideas for the future means you don't have that.
I think you are making a pretty big mistake in how you are planning to handle this from a business perspective. I know $20/hr seems like all the money in the world when you are in college, but it really isn't that much.
I think you need to spend a lot of time looking at the business side of things and get your feet wet on some paid gigs before you spend that kind of cash. Learn from those of us who have gone before you and spent years learning all this.
Even if you had no other bills, at $20/hr, assuming you take home $15, just a 1D3 body will cost you almost two month's salary.
I think you are making a pretty big mistake in how you are going about all this. I can only assume your silence on types of business you have already done or business ideas for the future means you don't have that.
I think you are making a pretty big mistake in how you are planning to handle this from a business perspective. I know $20/hr seems like all the money in the world when you are in college, but it really isn't that much.
I think you need to spend a lot of time looking at the business side of things and get your feet wet on some paid gigs before you spend that kind of cash. Learn from those of us who have gone before you and spent years learning all this.
Racer- you would be amazed at how many people bust my cajones over that. I'm not just talking self styled pros, I'm talking people who shoot weddings and other events for a living. I happen to like that shot, It was a very spontaneous moment that I happened to be "the idiot with the camera" to capture. It makes me mad when people bust my work over it, it was a CMA statement.
quote:Are you joking? While I would not argue that it is a hard and fast rule, it is a good rule of thumb to keep in mind. There are cases where I have broken it but more often than not, it is a good idea to offset a subject from the center of the frame.
"rule of thirds" please, that 'rule' is for beginners.
Rules of symmetry are always in effect, but there are many more ways to govern proportionality and symmetry in a photo than the over simplification of the rule of thirds.
I just get tired of the dogmatic schools of thought....
I just get tired of the dogmatic schools of thought....
Ag of 08
Agreed.
With todays ease of post computer aided processing vs film for the average Joe, "rules" like that one are almost not necessary any more.
[This message has been edited by agracer (edited 10/3/2008 8:00a).]
quote:I wasn't comments on your picture, just your "rules of thirds" statement. I didn't even look at the image (but I have now and it's a good capture of a spontaneous moment).
I happen to like that shot, It was a very spontaneous moment that I happened to be "the idiot with the camera" to capture
quote:
I just get tired of the dogmatic schools of thought....
Agreed.
With todays ease of post computer aided processing vs film for the average Joe, "rules" like that one are almost not necessary any more.
[This message has been edited by agracer (edited 10/3/2008 8:00a).]
It isnt really about photoshopping or film or digital or whatever, it is about composition of the photograph that is appealing to the eye. While Rules are made to be broken and just because something falls in the rule of thirds doesnt mean it will be appealing to the eye, something that follows these averages will probably end up more appealing that something that doesn't.
If I was going to critique it, i would probably say that the emotion is very nice and very real. But the slide is directly behind the subject and it is very distracting. I would probably try to clone that out. I think it is overprocessed, and there is too much pink in the kid's cheeks and too much red/orange in the grandma's cheeks and arms/legs. When you shot it, you cut off her foot and didn't give her butt enough room to sit. I would then probably do a tight 5:4 crop around the grandma and baby because the background adds nothing to the pic and is very distracting. Then with that crop, you magically have the rule of thirds showing up in the pic.
You didn't go for that rule of thirds, but when you cropped it tight, you got it anyway and it becomes a more visually pleasing picture.
If I was going to critique it, i would probably say that the emotion is very nice and very real. But the slide is directly behind the subject and it is very distracting. I would probably try to clone that out. I think it is overprocessed, and there is too much pink in the kid's cheeks and too much red/orange in the grandma's cheeks and arms/legs. When you shot it, you cut off her foot and didn't give her butt enough room to sit. I would then probably do a tight 5:4 crop around the grandma and baby because the background adds nothing to the pic and is very distracting. Then with that crop, you magically have the rule of thirds showing up in the pic.
You didn't go for that rule of thirds, but when you cropped it tight, you got it anyway and it becomes a more visually pleasing picture.
I need to correct the processing issues if I can locate the original. I had been using photoshop for less than a year at that point and went WAAAAAAY overboard....one more project to do, that wont get done 
.
I don't believe I cropped that one either. If I did it was only up top.
.I don't believe I cropped that one either. If I did it was only up top.
Let's keep critiques to their own threads, guys.
Looking to get into the world of digital SLR (still). Lol... and I'm sorry if this has been discussed in this mega-thread already!
Is IS necessary for a non-zoom lens?
What's a good, but cheap 2.8 general purpose lens? maybe ~$400? I'll get the Nifty also as well as the 70-200 later on but I need a good carry around lens.
I think I'm set on the XSi (can't live without live view).
Thanks!
Is IS necessary for a non-zoom lens?
What's a good, but cheap 2.8 general purpose lens? maybe ~$400? I'll get the Nifty also as well as the 70-200 later on but I need a good carry around lens.
I think I'm set on the XSi (can't live without live view).
Thanks!
Thread's a good read, and definitely worth your time if you can spare it.
As far as a good 2.8 lens for cheap, you probably won't get any cheaper than Tamron's 28-75 mm. Dang good value, though I can't give you a price quote off the top of my head.
As far as a good 2.8 lens for cheap, you probably won't get any cheaper than Tamron's 28-75 mm. Dang good value, though I can't give you a price quote off the top of my head.
cool, I'll look that one up.
I've read the original post many times and last read a ton of the thread a while back. Didn't really want to look through the rest.
Just felt that the main post didn't address which lens I should get around the $400 range.
I've read the original post many times and last read a ton of the thread a while back. Didn't really want to look through the rest.
Just felt that the main post didn't address which lens I should get around the $400 range.
The already mentioned Tamron 28-75 2.8 is pretty highly regarded as a general walkaround lens. I have the Sigma 24-70 2.8, but it is probably a bit bigger and heavier than the Tamron, if that is a big consideration. Either one can often be found used for a good price at one of the dealers mentioned on the first page of this thread. Another good source for used gear I have found is the Buy and Sell section of TexasPhotoForum.com. You can often find someone near your area selling what you want, so you can actually check it out before buying.
Well, not trying to be facetious or anything, but technically IS is not necessary, but neither is AF. But they both sure are nifty to have! Seriously, though, IS is probably less useful at shorter focal lengths, and almost becomes a necessity at more extreme telephoto lengths. In my experience, up to about 70mm, IS would not be really must-have, unless you shoot a lot in really low light at slow shutter speeds. Above 70mm, IS is progressively much more useful. I think that is a big reason most sports/wildlife shooters use Canon gear as opposed to Nikon, since Nikon is rather late to the VR (their version of IS) party for the big supertelephotos. I shoot a lot of wildlife at 300mm and above, mostly above, and even using a tripod, IS is MUCH more handy to have than not. Using a big telephoto handheld will convince you of the "necessity" of IS/VR quickly!
quote:
Is IS necessary for a non-zoom lens?
Well, not trying to be facetious or anything, but technically IS is not necessary, but neither is AF. But they both sure are nifty to have! Seriously, though, IS is probably less useful at shorter focal lengths, and almost becomes a necessity at more extreme telephoto lengths. In my experience, up to about 70mm, IS would not be really must-have, unless you shoot a lot in really low light at slow shutter speeds. Above 70mm, IS is progressively much more useful. I think that is a big reason most sports/wildlife shooters use Canon gear as opposed to Nikon, since Nikon is rather late to the VR (their version of IS) party for the big supertelephotos. I shoot a lot of wildlife at 300mm and above, mostly above, and even using a tripod, IS is MUCH more handy to have than not. Using a big telephoto handheld will convince you of the "necessity" of IS/VR quickly!
So I'm thinking that I want to upgrade my body. I've been shooting sports with my XTi, which has done well, but I think a boost in my continuous shooting rate would be very nice. I was thinking a 40D. I believe it'd be compatible with the lenses I used on the XTi. Are there other bodies (in a comparable price range) that I should look at? Is there something important I'm overlooking?
What are the best locations for buying new equipment in Dallas? (not places like Best Buy, Circuit City, etc.)
quote:
I have the Sigma 24-70 2.8, but it is probably a bit bigger and heavier than the Tamron, if that is a big consideration.
It also focuses a bit slower and I dont think it is as sharp.
quote:
almost becomes a necessity at more extreme telephoto lengths
Disagree completely. I do a good bit of extreme telephoto and never use it. It is a nice added feature, but not necessary. Surfing, football, etc. No real need. I know Aero likes it to limit his use of a tripod.
quote:
I think that is a big reason most sports/wildlife shooters use Canon gear as opposed to Nikon, since Nikon is rather late to the VR (their version of IS) party for the big supertelephotos.
It should be noted that IS cannot stop your subject's movement better - only a faster shutter speed can do that. IS generally just helps with the hand shake. If I am shooting a baseball being hit at 1/500th of a second on a 300mm lens, I wont get much camera shake, but I will get a motion blue of the ball. Only a shutter speed faster will help with that, not IS.
quote:
Using a big telephoto handheld will convince you of the "necessity" of IS/VR quickly!
A monopod is cheaper.
quote:
So I'm thinking that I want to upgrade my body. I've been shooting sports with my XTi, which has done well, but I think a boost in my continuous shooting rate would be very nice. I was thinking a 40D. I believe it'd be compatible with the lenses I used on the XTi. Are there other bodies (in a comparable price range) that I should look at? Is there something important I'm overlooking?
Look at the lenses you area using. A 70-200mm 2.8 should be in every sports shooter's bag.
40D or 50D shoot at about 6.3 frames per second. Save some money by going with a 30D or 20D (5 fps.)
quote:
What are the best locations for buying new equipment in Dallas? (not places like Best Buy, Circuit City, etc.)
Arlington Camera if you feel like you have to buy in person. Otherwise, BHphoto.com adorama.com or keh.com are my favorites.
Guitar, can you make a brand of that I can use on every customer who asks me about IS eyelids(the inside) so the stop asking?
Then you have Best Buy in college station that is telling people the 70-300IS lens has "two stabilizers" and one of them can stop motion blur. I kid you not I had a lady come in asking me a price for that lens and wanting to know how well it works....
Then you have Best Buy in college station that is telling people the 70-300IS lens has "two stabilizers" and one of them can stop motion blur. I kid you not I had a lady come in asking me a price for that lens and wanting to know how well it works....
VR/IS on telephotos can be extremely beneficial. While GS has a point that IS isn't "necessary" the number of pros that left Nikon to Canon because of their telephoto IS lenses is substantial.
A few wildlife photographers swear by their 600 f/4 IS. They can shoot in low light at down to 1/50 on their Wimberley. While this would never work for sports, it is useful shooting howling wolves at twilight.
A few wildlife photographers swear by their 600 f/4 IS. They can shoot in low light at down to 1/50 on their Wimberley. While this would never work for sports, it is useful shooting howling wolves at twilight.
quote:Very true... but what it will help you with is tracking a subject. When I shoots birds in flight (I haven't shot football with my new setup, though I really want to get back into it...), having a stabilized lens is helpful. Is it helping me the instant the shutter is released? No, but it does help me keep the subject in the frame and allow the AF to track.
It should be noted that IS cannot stop your subject's movement better - only a faster shutter speed can do that. IS generally just helps with the hand shake. If I am shooting a baseball being hit at 1/500th of a second on a 300mm lens, I wont get much camera shake, but I will get a motion blue of the ball. Only a shutter speed faster will help with that, not IS.
Having more issues with my pics. I seem to be getting a sort of blurring of colors and poor clarity in a sizable number of my shots. Faces and skintones look pretty odd, especially when looking at the original, full-sized image. For example,
http://img164.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=57104_IMG_1019_122_830lo.jpg
(Big file). On Kat's face (#17, white) and the ISU player #7, it just doesn't look right. I don't know that it's just a brightness or focus issue with this one (though I wouldn't rule it out), as it seems to be happening often. Shot with a Rebel XTi, Sigma 70-200, at ISO 100, f/4, 1/1250, Aperture Priority. Any advice?
http://img164.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=57104_IMG_1019_122_830lo.jpg
(Big file). On Kat's face (#17, white) and the ISU player #7, it just doesn't look right. I don't know that it's just a brightness or focus issue with this one (though I wouldn't rule it out), as it seems to be happening often. Shot with a Rebel XTi, Sigma 70-200, at ISO 100, f/4, 1/1250, Aperture Priority. Any advice?
Looks like the focus is off. The focal plane looks like it is somewhere between 17 & 7.
Also, were these shot RAW or in JPEG. Either way, it looks like the photo could benefit from a bit of sharpening.
Also, were these shot RAW or in JPEG. Either way, it looks like the photo could benefit from a bit of sharpening.
Jpeg. This was straight from the camera, no editing at all. I know I didn't put up a good one, but is there a way to improve smudging/blurring thing on the faces of people around the focus point (nearby player or something)? I'm getting this even when I (believe) I've got the focus right.
The first thing I would do run a sharpening mask on the photos. I tried this on the one you posted and it seemed to help a little. I bet it would help others as well.
quote:
is there a way to improve smudging/blurring thing on the faces of people around the focus point (nearby player or something)? I'm getting this even when I (believe) I've got the focus right.
Sounds like you want to increase the depth of field, if you desire more than one player to be in sharp focus. At f/4 as in the shot you linked to, the DOF will be pretty narrow. Try stopping down to f/8 or so and see if that helps. Of course, you may have to up the ISO setting to maintain a high shutter speed.
quote:
A monopod is cheaper.
Maybe not, especially when you consider that a majority of pro-grade telephotos, except for the older discontinued models, already come equipped with IS/VR now anyway.
If your subjects are moving in rather predictable tracks in only one horizontal plane, as in many sports, yes, a monopod is very useful. But for more complicated and unpredictable subjects, such as birds in flight and high speed aircraft at airshows, a monopod would likely be more cumbersome and added unnecessary weight. I know of at least one very accomplished and talented bird photographer who shoots virtually everything handheld, and I'm convinced IS is a factor in his success.Bottom line, I suppose it comes down to subject matter and shooting style. But if I had the choice between an IS/VR equipped lens and one without, especially a telephoto, I would take IS/VR. Anyway, I can, and sometimes do, turn it off if not needed.
quote:
(I haven't shot football with my new setup, though I really want to get back into it...)
What is the new setup?
quote:
While GS has a point that IS isn't "necessary" the number of pros that left Nikon to Canon because of their telephoto IS lenses is substantial.
Well, the pro shooters switched from Nikon film (specifically the F5 body) to Canon during the digital age for a number of reasons. One was Canon's pioneering of the IS technology. Another was Canon's pro bodies had MUCH better noise handling than Nikon's and Canon had better super-telephoto lenses. Canon's pro bodies were much better than Nikon's until the release of the D3, which is pretty adept at a number of different things and was the first body that was just absolutely amazing at noise handling in properly exposed pics.
quote:
A few wildlife photographers swear by their 600 f/4 IS.
And I believe every word. But for $8k, it should be worth every dime.
quote:
They can shoot in low light at down to 1/50 on their Wimberley. While this would never work for sports, it is useful shooting howling wolves at twilight.
That Wimberley locks and can be shot slower than that, if they really want to.
quote:
Maybe not, especially when you consider that a majority of pro-grade telephotos, except for the older discontinued models, already come equipped with IS/VR now anyway.
Umm, yeah, you can get a great monopod for ~$100. The up price on a IS lens over a non-IS lens is more than that in every case. A 70-200mm 2.8 is ~1200. A 70-200 2.8 IS is ~1600. A 400 2.8L can be had for ~3000. A new one with IS is going to run you 6500. KEH has a 300 4 IS used for 1200 and a non-IS for 850. I am sure that in every single case you can find, the non-IS version of a lens is considerably less than $100 less.
quote:
But for more complicated and unpredictable subjects, such as birds in flight and high speed aircraft at airshows, a monopod would likely be more cumbersome and added unnecessary weight.
It isn't a fix all for sure. But if someone understands how to use one well, it can help a lot. But if you are specialized in shooting birds in flights, you probably have a bushhawk anyway.
quote:
I know of at least one very accomplished and talented bird photographer who shoots virtually everything handheld, and I'm convinced IS is a factor in his success.
It would be nearly impossible to shoot low light without it handheld. However, a lot of bird stuff isn't shot at low light.
quote:
. But if I had the choice between an IS/VR equipped lens and one without, especially a telephoto, I would take IS/VR.
Sure, if I was given a choice between a 600 4 IS or a 600 4, I am taking the IS every time. However, I do have to pay for my own equipment and price is always a factor. Especially right now when the economy is in a crunch and fine art photography is a luxury. IS is a great technology, but is isn't necessary for every application and is sometimes a feature that could be passed over in favor of other gear.
I am about to do some Christmas shopping for myself and was curious if some of the online photo stores, like b&h, participate in Black Friday?
Don't know. I generally spend thanksgiving week to go somewhere to shoot.
Last year, New York City
Two years ago, Maui
This year, St. Augustine, Florida.
Last year, New York City
Two years ago, Maui
This year, St. Augustine, Florida.
GSoup and others...
About a year ago you mentioned your processing steps. Upload from Camera, Bridge, Lightroom, Upload to web. Are these still your steps?
The reason I ask is that I would like to learn more about some of the editing software out there and what people use. Presently, I use Picasa because it is simple, but it definitely is lacking in areas. I tried Photoshop and gimp, but good heavens! There are certain computer areas that I excel at, but photoshop makes my head explode just looking at it!
So, what editing software do the good people of this thread recommend for someone who is just looking for the best without any heads exploding.
Thanks!
About a year ago you mentioned your processing steps. Upload from Camera, Bridge, Lightroom, Upload to web. Are these still your steps?
The reason I ask is that I would like to learn more about some of the editing software out there and what people use. Presently, I use Picasa because it is simple, but it definitely is lacking in areas. I tried Photoshop and gimp, but good heavens! There are certain computer areas that I excel at, but photoshop makes my head explode just looking at it!
So, what editing software do the good people of this thread recommend for someone who is just looking for the best without any heads exploding.
Thanks!
It really depends on the assignment for me. If I am working on something that I will make into a large print (lots of $$ on the line) I go through every little detail on photoshop.
Normal ad work will probably go through Bridge to delete the bad ones, lightroom for cropping/color, photoshop for any cloning, disc to my graphics designers.
If I am shooting sports, I probably just look quickly through photomechanic and crop/caption the good ones, and send at the game. For my website, I will do the lightroom/upload process as I have time.
Realistically, if you want to get a program, I wold suggest Lightroom 2.0, which is about 100 for students. You will be able to easily do lots of editing (at least, a lot easier than CS3.) However, it wont let you clone stamp, etc.
That probably didnt help much.
Normal ad work will probably go through Bridge to delete the bad ones, lightroom for cropping/color, photoshop for any cloning, disc to my graphics designers.
If I am shooting sports, I probably just look quickly through photomechanic and crop/caption the good ones, and send at the game. For my website, I will do the lightroom/upload process as I have time.
Realistically, if you want to get a program, I wold suggest Lightroom 2.0, which is about 100 for students. You will be able to easily do lots of editing (at least, a lot easier than CS3.) However, it wont let you clone stamp, etc.
That probably didnt help much.
SO, you like Lightroom for someone like me.
I am actually watching an intro video right now for Lightroom. Seems simplistic!
thx
I am actually watching an intro video right now for Lightroom. Seems simplistic!
thx
Featured Stories
See All
14:21
4h ago
1.0k
6:51
12h ago
1.5k
60:38
10h ago
1.4k
B-Team: Recapping the weekend vs. Auburn, ABS in Hoover & more
by Ryan Brauninger
Some questions remain as A&M eyes top class in 2027
by Jason Howell
10:32
15h ago
936
Highly competitive Aiden Sims has found consistency as a sophomore
by Ryan Brauninger
Captain Pablo
Has Elko addressed our biggest statistical shortcoming for 26/27?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
4
robprall
FINAL from Blue Bell Park: No. 9 Texas A&M 16, Prairie View A&M 7
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
2