Wanna Learn Photography? [Archive] - Page 3

KarenS

03-07-2006, 10:53 AM

There have been some nice images posted here lately but I'd like to offer one very general critique.

When you're taking a photo, think very carefully about what the SUBJECT of the image is. What do you want the viewers eye to be drawn to and why? What type of emotion or feeling are you wanting to convey? A sense of scale? Motion? Emotion? Think about all of that before you press the shutter.

I'm seeing a lot of what could be potentially solid, interesting images that are missing the mark because there's "stuff" going on - out of focus elements that aren't leading the eye anywhere, blots of color or flashes of bright light that distract the viewer, etc.

When you're composing a shot, make sure your subject is the thing tthat is foremost in your image, by making sure it's not out of place or proportion to other, lesser elements in the photograph. Keep the rule of thirds in mind. Keep your background and foreground in mind.

It's a lot to remember, I know, but keep practicing and soon it will become second nature.

Karen

Bahama_mama

03-07-2006, 04:22 PM

OK...
Lighting all depends on if it is daytime or nighttime, what church I am at, or if it is in an arena. So I will just give the situation that happens most of the time... Most of the time it is in a church during daytime & there isn't many windows. Light is average. Some churchs are overly bright, others dim, then there is the inbetween. Ours is inbetween. I usually use the wide angle zoom lense (28-80) for group shots & some closer shots. I have been setting my digital to 200 ISO & switching the lighting mode to flash. I use a telephoto (70-300) for some flash shots like very close up shots where I will pose the individuals in different scenes (like if a child was sitting on "Jesus" lap-I get a close up of "Jesus & the child). Shots when I use no flash are done during the actual play & I switch over to 1600 ISO....I really like zooming in on individual characters when I know they won't be moving much during that actual play. The colors & such turn out really neat! (AND YES I use a tripod then!!! LOL - Thought I would answer that before you asked or told me to!!!! ) ;) I have been horsing around with different lighting modes with the no flash since you can get different lighting techniques with that but I mostly put it on AWB. So...with all that information, would it be "safe" for me to use the flash I mentioned & have the lighting be ok??? Also, I just got a call yesterday & my friend is getting married in this church & really likes my pictures, I am not professional by any means but she really really wants me to take them. She is also hiring someone but she wants me to take more "personal" shots before the photographer gets there. Would this flash also be safe if I stayed within the 50 feet (the SAFE distance you were talking about?)
Thanks so much...I hope all this information helps out!!!!!

Little Angel '77

03-14-2006, 07:06 PM

Nicole, if you can afford it, try ebay.

Bahama Mama,
Of course your flash would be fine. If you are getting "good" shots without flash, you don't need it. Flash helps freeze actions, add more light to a dark scene and helps the overall feel of an image (depending on the image).

I am a pro, and I use flash 60% of the time in churches during the day. It also depends on the church. Some churches are very bright during the day and have great windows. Some are VERY dark. I would also HIGHLY recommend going a little higher on your ISO. I shoot 400, and sometimes 800, and if its REALLY dark, I shoot 1600.

It all depends on if YOU want natural light shots, and if you can get away with natural light or if you NEED flash. Sometimes to "get the image" you NEED flash. I would also suggest not using direct flash, bounce it if you can . Sometimes you can, sometimes you can't (mirror on the ceilings and walls)... etc.

Hope that helps.

Sunshine

03-15-2006, 08:25 AM

Here's another question:D

We will be visiting a LARGE aquarium, that will have sharks and stingrays etc in it.....
How would I properly take a pic, so that I can view what is inside of the tank?

And would I be able to take a "good" pic with say my DH standing in front of the tank, and still be able to somewhat view what is inside the tank as well?

Would there be certain settings I would want to use?
I just thought i would ask beforehand, instead of sitting there for a half hour trying to tune my settings properly:p
(Which I did when I first got my camera at a baby shower....it was very dim lit in the room, and it took me about 5-10 mins to figure out how to set my camera.....sigh:o :p )
TIA!

Bahama_mama

03-15-2006, 12:16 PM

KarenS

03-15-2006, 09:24 PM

I enlarge from 800 iso all the time, but it's important to not be underexposed at all or you get noise. Knowing your exposures is key.

As far as harsh shadows, that's part of learning to balance your flash with the ambient light and to raise your flash off the camera - either by putting it on a bracket, so the shadows fall lower, or by using bounced flash and softening the light.

Karen

JustVita

03-16-2006, 12:08 AM

Karen (or any of you other professionals out there),
Have you heard of this camera? It's currently $339 and is a 6mp, 12x optical, 4x digital with continuous shooting and a 2.5" LCD. I've read several reviews and the one consistent negative in noise above 100-200 ISO. I have to be honest in that this means zilch to me in that I have no knowledge of ISO, but from what I can tell, for our needs wouldn't be a big deal. Have any opinions anyone? BTW, it's the Panasonic DMC-FZ7S Digital Camera

http://www.circuitcity.com/IMAGE/product/enlarged/pan/EC.PAN.DMCFZ7S.JPG

Little Angel '77

03-16-2006, 05:40 AM

Little Angel 77- You wouldn’t want to shoot at 800 if you were going to make enlargements 8x10 or higher would you? That would be too grainy wouldn’t it???? And since you are pro & said you do shoots in churches I am assuming that would be weddings... you wouldn't want that high for that would you? Just curious....

you also use your flash in churches for weddings? I notice that mine will create a harsh shadow on the background sometimes.... does yours do that? It is ok for plays but doesn’t that create a problem for weddings? Just curious... it would be nice if I got that harsh shadow out of there....how do you get it out????

TIA

I make enlargements at 800 and sometimes at 1600. The way I was taught, its either you get the shot, or you get nothing. A slightly grainy picture might bother you, but most none photographers won't really notice it. Technology is getting so good, grain is becoming less and less of an issue in my opinion. I absolutely go 800 and 1600 for church shots if its dark. What would I tell the bride if I didn't get the shot? I can't say "well, I could have taken it, but it would have been grainy." That's not acceptable.
I do whatever it takes to get the shot. I will come back and post shots taken with ISO 800 later today. With my 20D, I really am not bothered by it. When I first started out, I was in the camp of not going over ISO 400. I never got any shots. The photographer that I trained with yelled at me EVERY time, and said "do what ever you need to do to get the shot". I live by that now. I would even go to ISO 3200 if needed. I haven't had to -but that's why its' there in the camera. Why wouldn't you use it? Because of a little grain?? There are programs out there that can take care of it now.

As Karen said, the harsh shadows are either caused by you using direct flash or bouncing improperly. PM and I'll send you to my shots taken at ISO 800 in dark venues with proper flash. Its not hard, once you get the hang of it.

JustVita
The noise means "grain" on the picture. its not smooth, it seems like you can see dots of colors like red and green from ... actually I don't know what causes it in the camera. Karen probably does. What are going to be you uses for this camera? I wouldn't buy it to take professional pictures- but for you it might be a fine camera. ISO is what lets in more light on the chip of the camera in dark situations to get the shot properly exposed.

JustVita

03-16-2006, 06:57 AM

Little Angel - Thanks. We'll be using it purely for personal use. We are specifically looking for something with high optical zoom just to increase the quality of shots taken far away and up close. I doubt we'll ever print anything above 8x10, if that. And since I'm not ready to go the SLR route, due to the cost, I figure the continuous shooting is a good thing. If I'm not mistaken, this will take up to 3 frames per second...but also from reading reviews, it appears that this might take into account a higher ISO setting, which is my concern. Does that sound right?

Also, I read reviews from stevesdigicams.com and dpreview.com. I'm told that they are fairly good review sites. And as I mentioned before, they thought that overall, the camera, for the value, is a great one, but the ISO past 100 and 200 was a common complaint.

Little Angel '77

03-16-2006, 02:20 PM

I think you should be fine then. Higher ISo won't be a problem for you. The optical zoom will do the job for you as will the continuious rapid fire.

JustVita

03-22-2006, 07:29 PM

Thanks Little Angel. Sorry for the delay. I was off having a baby!:) It's now no longer on sale, but I'm hoping they might honor the price since I was out of commission. I appreciate your input.

Bahama_mama

03-30-2006, 11:35 AM

Little Angel~
THANKS! Never thought of that! PMing you now!
I have my flash on the hotshoe on my 20D. I get it when I put the camera up & down to take the long shots.... Then the flash is to the side.... still on the camera....

THANKS for the info...that really makes sense!!!!!

justHB

03-30-2006, 12:01 PM

I make enlargements at 800 and sometimes at 1600. The way I was taught, its either you get the shot, or you get nothing. A slightly grainy picture might bother you, but most none photographers won't really notice it. Technology is getting so good, grain is becoming less and less of an issue in my opinion. I absolutely go 800 and 1600 for church shots if its dark. What would I tell the bride if I didn't get the shot? I can't say "well, I could have taken it, but it would have been grainy." That's not acceptable.
I do whatever it takes to get the shot. I will come back and post shots taken with ISO 800 later today. With my 20D, I really am not bothered by it. When I first started out, I was in the camp of not going over ISO 400. I never got any shots. The photographer that I trained with yelled at me EVERY time, and said "do what ever you need to do to get the shot". I live by that now. I would even go to ISO 3200 if needed. I haven't had to -but that's why its' there in the camera. Why wouldn't you use it? Because of a little grain?? There are programs out there that can take care of it now.

As Karen said, the harsh shadows are either caused by you using direct flash or bouncing improperly. PM and I'll send you to my shots taken at ISO 800 in dark venues with proper flash. Its not hard, once you get the hang of it.

JustVita
The noise means "grain" on the picture. its not smooth, it seems like you can see dots of colors like red and green from ... actually I don't know what causes it in the camera. Karen probably does. What are going to be you uses for this camera? I wouldn't buy it to take professional pictures- but for you it might be a fine camera. ISO is what lets in more light on the chip of the camera in dark situations to get the shot properly exposed.To this point, I think some grainy pictures can even look very beautiful and ethereal, especially if taken in a gorgeous church with lots of architectural significance. Think film noir. FWIW, one of my absolute favorite wedding pictures is slightly out of focus. Sure, it's not technically correct, but I love our facial expressions, the movement of the photo, and everything about it; I'm glad our photographer got it, even if it's not perfect. That said, I would have been pissed if all the other photos were out of focus too, but a slightly "off" photo can still be a good photo. Also, as was pointed out, digital technology these days can fix a lot of problems, but you have to have the photo to fix to begin with, kwim?

I was talking with another photographer friend and she said she doesn't shoot very many frames b/c she only wants to capture good images. That was just mind boggling to me. I shoot everything, from many different angles, b/c you never know when you're going to stumble upon that "perfect" image. Yeah, a lot of what I shoot is unusable, but I'd say every single shoot I've done has revealed a gem of a photo that I wouldn't have been able to show my clients if I didn't operate with that mentality.

Bahama_mama

03-30-2006, 12:18 PM

I agree with Just HB
I shoot TONS of pictures no matter if it is just for a bday party...you can always delete a picture!!!!! You just never know when you will "stumble" onto a great picture!!!

Little Angel '77

03-31-2006, 06:05 AM

Cropping is a good way to save a semi okay picture.
There are days that just by cropping a picture differently, it can be more dramatic too.

Little Angel '77

03-31-2006, 06:12 AM

I was talking with another photographer friend and she said she doesn't shoot very many frames b/c she only wants to capture good images. That was just mind boggling to me. I shoot everything, from many different angles, b/c you never know when you're going to stumble upon that "perfect" image. Yeah, a lot of what I shoot is unusable, but I'd say every single shoot I've done has revealed a gem of a photo that I wouldn't have been able to show my clients if I didn't operate with that mentality.

Are you joking? I know a photographer that takes 7-8k for a wedding!!! He cuts it down to 1500 for the bride. I take about 2K a wedding, and bring it down to 400-600.

I was at my friends wedding back in October and the photographer was shooting film. It was the most mind blowing thing. She would take one shot every 5 minutes or so, she took ONE shot of the cake cutting, and first dance.

Needless to say, my friend loved my photos, becasue I capture facial expressions her photographer missed, simply because she was conserving film *sigh*.

I find that film shooters tend to shoot conservatively. With digital, once card can hold 500 + pictures, depending on the size. No conservation here :P

ManteoChik

03-31-2006, 07:30 AM

luckiestgirl Unfortunatly, there are still a lot of people who are uneducated about the process of photography. They assume that film=better OR digital=better. My personal preference is digital, and sometimes people just don't understand the concept of rendering an image as B&W on the computer. To them its either all or nothing...you either shoot B&W film or you don't. Whenever I have potential clients that are concerened about being able to have B&W images I always sit them down and show then what I do and how I shoot digital and can convert any picture they wish to B&W. Once a client is educated on the process a little bit more they seem to feel more at ease with the whole thing.

nicole

03-31-2006, 07:50 AM

My feeling is that if film grain wasn't desirable in at least some situations, they wouldn't have the option of adding it in Photoshop. :)

Having the ability to have nearly any picture in B&W or color is one of my favorite things about digital. That and the instant gratification! Our wedding photog shots digital and the only pics (engagement - not married yet) we didn't have the option of having in color were the ones shot with some kind of green filter to bring out the texture in the pictures. Well, we could've had them in color, but they would've been green!

Koala_Gurl

03-31-2006, 09:53 AM

Woo hoo! My old computer crashed, so I am getting a MUCH faster one! Yippee!!! (Working in Photoshop was getting painful!)

Question...I am using just the software that came w/ my camera for processing the RAW files. Trouble is, I can only see a few up close. I would LOVE to know if there is anything better out there for viewing RAW files? Ideally, I would love to see more pictures up close at a time so I can more easily (and quickly) weed out the bad shots. Anyone have suggestions???

TIA!

KarenS

03-31-2006, 04:37 PM

Well, I'd like to note that there is a difference between shooting tons of photos in the hope of getting a good one and being technically proficient and still shooting lots because you like to explore the angles and the opportunities.

Too many people are going into photography now with the idea that they can shoot a bajillion shots and get "enough" good ones out of it, or that they don't have to be technically proficient because they can "fix" everything in Photoshop.

I can agree with the photographer who only wants to get "good" shots. I don't take anything unless I know it's *good*. I can find or create 1000+ good images at any event. And I know that out of those 1000+ shots, maybe a handful of them will be great ... but I am always striving for great ... not shooting a lot and hoping for good. I don't want to "stumble" over great shots ... I want to make them with knowledge of how I did it and wht made them great.

Karen

deliciousjones

03-31-2006, 06:27 PM

i agree with this:

Too many people are going into photography now with the idea that they can shoot a bajillion shots and get "enough" good ones out of it, or that they don't have to be technically proficient because they can "fix" everything in Photoshop.

i dont shoot weddings, just portraits, but i rarely take more than 40-50 shots in a 1-2 hour on-location session. i show clients 25-30 of those images. in studio sessions, i take ~15 shots and show 10.

i pretty much know what works and what doesn't work when photographing kids. and, i'd say that about 85% of the images that i take are technically accurate, so i don't need to worry about getting enough to salvage a few, does that make sense?

Little Angel '77

04-03-2006, 11:32 AM

I have had MANY requests for B&W pictures...I tell them I will shoot in color because you can always switch color to B&W but you can never change B&W to color. I give all proofs in B&W if that is what they wanted. If they want a mixture I give all the proofs in color then insert various B&W images throughout to show them what they would look like. I charge the same price for the packages if they want all B&W or all color or a mixture... but ordering outside of the package my B&W prints are more… Just curious on everyone elses thought on this.....
I basically tell them the same thing. I tell them I take all shots in color and then convert to black and white, due to the fact that if I take it in B& W I can't change it back. don't charge if they ask me to convert, it’s a simple mouse click, and I can run back actions. If they want me to do color splash on one or two images, I can do that. If it’s a lot more than one or two for color splash, I might charge 50 cents an image or something.

Question...I am using just the software that came w/ my camera for processing the RAW files. Trouble is, I can only see a few up close. I would LOVE to know if there is anything better out there for viewing RAW files? Ideally, I would love to see more pictures up close at a time so I can more easily (and quickly) weed out the bad shots. Anyone have suggestions??? Photoshop, or DPP. There are a few other programs, but it depends on if you are MAC or PC. I might suggest ASeeDC if you are PC.
As for taking a ton of image and hoping to get a good shot, I do take a ton of images, but its not hoping for a good shot, its more that I never know what I am going to get, and a simple crop on something, might make an ho hum image, a really great image. I do get all of my images technically correct with exposure. My first wedding, WAS a disaster, and it was helpful that I took 2K in images, I was in the camp of never go above ISO 400 on my camera, which was a very huge mistake in a very very dark hall.

ShelbyMay

04-03-2006, 12:46 PM

I have my flash on the hotshoe on my 20D. I get it when I put the camera up & down to take the long shots.... Then the flash is to the side.... still on the camera....

Like Karen said, you might want to try a flash bracket to get the flash off your camera, or something to diffuse the flash -- I like the Lightsphere (http://store.garyfonginc.com/liiido.html).

KarenS

04-03-2006, 06:36 PM

I give all the proofs in color then insert various B&W images throughout to show them what they would look like. I charge the same price for the packages if they want all B&W or all color or a mixture... but ordering outside of the package my B&W prints are more… Just curious on everyone elses thought on this..... Clients are hiring me for my artistic vision so I present some images in color and some in b&w and the client does not get to choose. I often shoot an image with the express intention that it will become black and white - just like when I shot film I carried 2 cameras and shot with either color or b&w depending on the look I wanted. What I want to avoid is having clients look at the images and say "can I see this one in b&w - oh, no, what about this one? No, I think I want to see it in color again. No, maybe that one in b&w ...." I don't have time to play that game back and forth. :)

I do take a ton of images, but its not hoping for a good shot, its more that I never know what I am going to get, and a simple crop on something, might make an ho hum image, a really great image. Oh, I certainly wasn't trying to say that's what *you* do ... but the thing is when pro photographers start telling non-pros that one of the benefits to digital is that you can shoot a lot in order to get a good image, I think it compromises the value of what we do. It makes it sound like that's what pros do as well. I think it's important for non-photogs to know that it's not about the "pray and spray" method for those of us who are pros.

I do wonder what you mean when you say "I never know what I'm going to get". I almost *always* know what I'm going to get unless I'm experimenting or doing something totally crazy like holding the camera above my head during the dancing - and even then I have an *idea* of what I'm going to (or attempting to) get, if not the exact image in my mind. I do everything I can to get the EXACT shot in the camera at the time I take the photo. I shoot 30 weddings a year and I simply don't have time to crop or try variations on "ho hum" images. I visualize what I'm shooting when I'm shooting it and I HAVE to get the image at the time I shoot it or it doesn't make the cut. I never shoot anything (at least not professionally) w/out knowing what I'm going to get.

Karen

Karen

KarenS

04-03-2006, 06:48 PM

Dear Mom of Groom,

Thanks for sending me your variations on the images. I appreciate that you took the time. However, I do not release original files for printing or reproduction. I will be happy to provide any retouching you request at a rate of $125 per hour.

As for printing through my professional lab, I'm afraid that wouldn't be possible. My lab only works with professional photographers who open an account with them. My suggestion to you would be to try http://www.mpix.com, which is the consumer division of a highly respected professional photo lab.

Best,
Luckiest

greenbunny

04-04-2006, 08:09 AM

Too many people are going into photography now with the idea that they can shoot a bajillion shots and get "enough" good ones out of it, or that they don't have to be technically proficient because they can "fix" everything in Photoshop.

This is where I'm at right now--not because I think it's a good idea, but out of lack of skill. I'm still taking tons of shots, hoping a few will turn out the way I want. DH is constantly frustrated with me taking the same shot over and over, trying to get it right.

Now I'm not, nor do I want to be, shooting professionally, but he gets so annoyed that I spend a large amount of time on our vacations making him wait around for me to capture that great shot over 100 exposures. This is why I want a better camera and to take classes so badly. I waste so much time!

emschwar

04-04-2006, 08:15 AM

This is where I'm at right now--not because I think it's a good idea, but out of lack of skill. I'm still taking tons of shots, hoping a few will turn out the way I want. DH is constantly frustrated with me taking the same shot over and over, trying to get it right.

Now I'm not, nor do I want to, shooting professionally, but he gets so annoyed that I spend a large amount of time on our vacations making him wait around for me to capture that great shot over 100 exposures. This is why I want a better camera and to take classes so badly. I waste so much time!
Me too. Though part of it is my subject - he's almost 2 and won't sit still or tolerate mommy getting in his face with the camera. I want to learn to take better pictures, but I can't find a class. All the ones I've seen locally are for film, or for PhD (push here, dummy) digital cameras.

deliciousjones

04-04-2006, 10:21 AM

Why not take the film class?

emschwar

04-04-2006, 11:16 AM

Why not take the film class?
Too much time and money. Especially the $ part, with all the lab fees and whatnot. Plus, I just don't have the luxury right now of spending several hours a week in a darkroom.

Little Angel '77

04-04-2006, 12:58 PM

I do wonder what you mean when you say "I never know what I'm going to get". I almost *always* know what I'm going to get unless I'm experimenting or doing something totally crazy like holding the camera above my head during the dancing - and even then I have an *idea* of what I'm going to (or attempting to) get, if not the exact image in my mind. I do everything I can to get the EXACT shot in the camera at the time I take the photo. I shoot 30 weddings a year and I simply don't have time to crop or try variations on "ho hum" images. I visualize what I'm shooting when I'm shooting it and I HAVE to get the image at the time I shoot it or it doesn't make the cut. I never shoot anything (at least not professionally) w/out knowing what I'm going to get.

Karen

Karen Again, my lack of elliquent speaking…
I do not spray and pray, I do not have time for that. My first wedding, spray and pray… I will totally agree. :) Not anymore.

I just personally like taking a lot of images. I don't take ANY useless images. I do know what I want with almost every image I take, but then when I take one image, I might take a second one to at a different focal length that I wasn't thinking about exactly what I am aiming for. What's the harm in taking a shot, that you weren't "planning" for?

You get home and the shot you didn't "plan for" or "think in your head about" turns out to be the be the shot fo the wedding.

I think its just a different way of shooting. Different style, different approach. but NOT spray and pray.

KarenS

04-04-2006, 06:59 PM

What's the harm in taking a shot, that you weren't "planning" for? Nothing. I think you're confusing "not planning for" with "have no idea what I'm doing". Your posts above say "I never know what I'm going to get" and something about taking lots of shots while "hoping" to get a good one. It bothers me when professional photographers use these phrases to the general public because it demeans what we do. I suspect what you may mean is "I go into an event w/out any preconcieved ideas or shot lists, prepared to take a lot of photographs of the actual moments." But what you're saying is "I don't know what I'm going to get when I take a picture, so I shoot a lot and hope." Now from what I've seen of your work as you've grown as a photographer, this is not what *you* do. It is, however, what you're *saying* you do! :) And I'm not trying to call you out. I'm really not. But when you say the things you've said, you make it sound like anyone can be a professional photographer by just shooting a lot and "hoping" they get something good. And you and I both know that's not the way it works.

Karen

KarenS

04-04-2006, 07:26 PM

You know ...I just want to really emphasize again that I am NOT saying that you Little Angel are not competent or don't konw what you're doing. I really feel the need to make that clear. :) I don't want you to think I'm insulting you, because I'm not.

I just want to maybe plant the seed that professionals should think carefully about how they present what it is they do to non-pros who are seeking to learn. Making it sound in any way like we're "hoping" or "guessing" or "not sure" about the results of our photography is, IMO, demeaning to the profession. Real professional photogs don't hope or guess about their work. Sure we all experiment and try things - that's part of growing as a photographer. But there's a difference between a calculated attempt to try something different and "hoping" that you'll get something good.

I really feel very strongly about this, as you might be able to tell. Photographers are already thought of as next to used car salesmen by a lot of people. And when the general public is given the impression that a photographer is charging thousands of $$$ and doesn't know what they're going to get ... it's a bad thing.

But ... that's my soapbox. :) It's something, as I said, that I feel strongly about. It's not about *you* personally. :D

Karen

Little Angel '77

04-04-2006, 07:32 PM

But when you say the things you've said, you make it sound like anyone can be a professional photographer by just shooting a lot and "hoping" they get something good. Karen
:eek: God no... no no no no no no ... did I say no? Again, my horrible writing skills.

I got an email today that said.... "what lighting do you use?? Fiancee and I are getting married and plan to get into photography"

(whimper).....

No - that's not how it works. Could you imagine? Just hold the shutter button and spin in circles. :rolleyes: Ha!

(BTW-I know you're not calling me out :) I just can never write what I mean.)

marchfamily

04-18-2006, 02:24 PM

Cross posted in the Photography thread:

I know this is a matter of opinion, but share your thoughts. I am in the market for a new camera. I currently have a pretty outdated Sony Cyber-shot. I like the ease of use and the size. But have been disappointed by shutter speed and flash (takes forever). I pretty much use it to take pictures of my child (soon to be two kids) – and rarely use it for anything else. I rarely enlarge any pictures that I take, so most cameras would work for my needs. My question: stick with the point and shoot, or go with a digital SLR? I’m interested in learning more about photography. I like the some of the options offered with higher end cameras, i.e. portrait settings etc.

Thoughts?

KarenS

04-18-2006, 02:27 PM

Hm. Well I'm getting kind of mixed messages from your post. YOu say you want to learn more about photography but that you rarely use it for anything other than photos of your kids. If you want to learn more about photography, getting a more advanced camera is (IMO) a necessity. But if you're not going to really use it for anything other than family grab shots, then getting anything too upgraded is a waste of money.

Obviously if you just WANT a more upgraded camera ... go for it. I'm the last person to say don't buy good gear! :) (Ask my husband)

But I think what you're going to do with it is going to determine what you should do as far as equipment. Do you see yourself shooting more and using the images more. Or are you really just looking for something that will do the job of taking family photos?

Karen

marchfamily

04-18-2006, 02:43 PM

Do you see yourself shooting more and using the images more. Or are you really just looking for something that will do the job of taking family photos?

Like most new parents, I've enjoyed taking photos of my little one. I'd like to learn to take better overall photos (probably with better equipment and a bit of time dedicated to learning the basics of photography). I don't see myself getting out there and taking tons of landscape photos, etc. I'm willing and wanting to spend some time to read up on taking better pictures - just not sure what level of equipment I need to get to that point. Does that make sense?

Koala_Gurl

04-18-2006, 03:45 PM

If you can afford a digital SLR, I say go for it, you won't be disappointed. :)

I bought one and while I am still very much a beginner, I am loving my camera...every nickel I spent on it. (FWIW...I HATED the lag on the shutter on my P&S, so that was the selling factor for me.) Sure, I mainly take family photos, but I have been experiementing and really having fun with it.

KarenS

04-18-2006, 03:47 PM

I'll agree with Koala-Gurl - if you can afford something like the Canon D350 (digital Rebel) or the Nikon D70, then go for it. You'll be much happier with the responsiveness of them and if you ever do feel like you want to take more photos and learn more about the process, you won't feel constrained by the camera.

Karen

Koala_Gurl

04-25-2006, 07:39 PM

I was wondering if anyone could tell me a good digital photo processing place that a customer can go to. A while back I told you about a grooms mom that wanted me to send her digital prints along with mine to my professional company. I told her I could not do that & she is wondering if I know of any she could use to get close to the same quality. Does anyone have any suggestions for someone who isn't a professional or a student?

THANKS!
~Kelli~

I have had others recommend mpix.com for prints (I have only used them sparingly, but have been very happy w/ them so far...much better than Shutterfly).

Little Angel '77

04-26-2006, 03:05 PM

I have another question. When taking senior pictures...what are yearbook glossies & how do you go about ordering them through your professional company? I am still a student & haven't ventured down the senior picture road yet but my daughter is a senior next year & all her friends want me to do their pictures. I have been reading up on local senior pricelists to get an idea of what to charge & several list that included is 2 yearbook glossies. I thought that the kids just took in a colored one for the yearbook!

Thanks for any info!!!
~Kelli~

I think they are just glossy prints? If you are going to take them, I would make sure you know the yearbook submission guidelines to put the prints IN the actual yearbook. Giving prints and submitting to yearbooks are two different things. I would call the yearbook office and check.

Little Angel '77

05-03-2006, 08:41 AM

I thought to spice up this thread a little more, I'd see if anyone want to participate in weekly challenges. We use to do this in the OLD thread in the "other" place. Any one interested?

Koala_Gurl

05-03-2006, 06:13 PM

I thought to spice up this thread a little more, I'd see if anyone want to participate in weekly challenges. We use to do this in the OLD thread in the "other" place. Any one interested?

Sure! I may not have time to participate every week, but I'd still like to play when I can. :)

nicole

05-03-2006, 11:24 PM

I like the idea of the weekly (Or maybe every other week) challenges. I'm definitely just learning, but it would be fun to challenge myself.

KarenS

05-04-2006, 08:39 AM

I like the idea. I'm trying to get back into shooting more myself. I keep saying that and stuff keeps cropping up. :) I know a new 26 Things has been posted ... maybe I'll start there.

Karen

Lindsan

05-04-2006, 10:26 AM

I'm interested too.

ManteoChik

05-04-2006, 01:16 PM

Me too!

nicole

05-04-2006, 05:10 PM

Okay, so who posts the challenges? I wasn't a part of the old thread so i don't know.

PinkMartini

05-04-2006, 11:19 PM

Wow.... 3 hours later I finally finished reading this entire thread... GREAT info here ladies. I appreciate the time and effort that you 'pros' have put into this thread :)
I'm only a P&S hobby photographer but love taking pictures. I took a few classes back in H.S. on photog and it's all coming back to me now. Reading this thread prompted me to bust out my manual and check out all of the 'options' I have, that I didn't even know about. Being very interested in photog, I've been looking into SLR camera's but getting one won't happen any time soon.

Can novice's w/o a SLR participate in the challenges???

nicole

05-05-2006, 06:46 AM

PinkMartini - Can novice's w/o a SLR participate in the challenges???
That totally describes me, and I'm going to try the challenges. Maybe it won't work out, but it'll help us learn, right? And we don't necessarily have to post our results if they're less than what we expected.

lakewoodbride

05-05-2006, 01:47 PM

I'd love to be a part of the challenge since I just got a new digital SLR and am starting to learn photography!

MeTheGirlie

05-05-2006, 02:50 PM

I may not be able to participate every week but I'd love to be involved.

Little Angel '77

05-06-2006, 06:33 PM

ANYONE CAN PARTICIPATE- SLR or P&S -(If you know how to really work your camera, you can get GREAT images with a P&S jsut as well as a SLR at times.)

okay. I'll post the first challenge since it was my idea.

Challenge:
First one is easy- portrait
Or you can try a harder challenge, and have a BACKLIGHT PORTRAIT
It can be kids, friend, families.

For the harder challenge- HINT- Move your subject in the light, until they see their shadow infront of them.

**they will get harder as we go***

Now the rules:
The picture has to be recent (taken in the last couple days or so)
This is a LEARNING challenge, so people are allowed to make comments (no being mean, just constructive ideas on something to work on, and how to better your kills) If you don't want any comments, just say "NO COMMENTS PLEASE"

Okay... GO!
I have to go upload mine, I'll be back

Koala_Gurl

05-06-2006, 08:57 PM

Cool!!

One *small* suggestion (and it isn't a deal breaker or anything), but I would be able to participate more often if the picture could be a little older??? (Or is this so we are taking the shot specifically for this challenge??) No worries if that is the intent, it will make me better about uploading my pictures in a more timely manner. ;)

KarenS

05-07-2006, 01:16 AM

I think the point of having it be a recent photo is that you're supposed to try to create the situation described and learn from it. It's harder if you pull an old photo out where you might not remember the settings you used or the situation .. then if someone gives you feedback, you're less likely to remember "oh yeah, I used f4 and I could have used f2" or whatever.

Karen

greenbunny

05-07-2006, 09:21 AM

Not to butt in on the competition, but I have an unrelated question. :)

I took some pictures specifically with the intent of getting them framed for my wall. Unfortunately, somehow I set the camera to a lower quality file size than I'd wanted. Now I'm trying to decide if I need to take them all over, or if I can get by with what I have.

Is there a site or chart of some kind that will tell you what file size or pixel widths/heights correspond to an acceptacle quality photo size? I'm not having any luck with Google.

As an example, I'm looking for something like (and this is totally made up, so it probably makes no sense):

400 KB makes up to 4x6 print
700 KB makes up to 5x7 print

or something like that.

nicole

05-07-2006, 10:32 AM

greenbunny - This is from snapfish.com. I hope it helps! The KB is going to depend on the file type, but if you have the dimensions this should work.

Print Size, Minimum image resolution required
4 x 6, 540x360 pixels
5 x 7, 550x393 pixels
8 x 10, 960x770 pixels
11 x 14, 800x630 pixels
12 x 18, 900x600 pixels
16 x 20, 1136x910 pixels
20 x 30, 1278x852 pixels

and this is from shutterfly.com

less than 640x480 : only wallet-size prints recommended
640x480 : absolute minimum resolution for 4x6; results will vary
1024 x 768 : minimum recommended resolution for 4x6
1152 x 864 : minimum recommended resolution for 5x7
1600 x 1200 : minimum recommended resolution for 8x10 or larger

There's some discrepancy, but this should give you a fair idea.

KarenS

05-07-2006, 10:40 AM

The reason that there's discrepancy is that the numbers don't really hold any meaning unless you know the resolution. That's the dpi or ppi number associated with that file.

For example
a 4x6 at 300 dpi (which is the ideal size for printing) is going to be 1200x1800 pixels
a 4x6 at 72 dpi (which will not print well at all) is going to be 288x432 pixels
a 4x6 at 150 dpi (which will probably give you a decent image if it's not too detailed) is going to be 600x900 pixels

As a general rule, you should always use your camera on the highest available settings if you think there's a possibility that you're going to want to make prints.

Karen

nicole

05-07-2006, 10:48 AM

Well, the discrepancy is that Shutterfly has higher resolution standards than Snapfish.

Greenbunny - I meant to ask, can we see the pictures? I've always wanted to have one of my photos displayed in my place, but I never know what to take a picture of! :)

greenbunny

05-07-2006, 11:35 AM

Hmm. Okay. Well, my camera is 3.34 megapixel, and I took the pics at 1024 x 768. Other than that, I'm not sure yet what to look for.

The five options I have are 2048 x 1536, 1600 x 1200, 1280 x 960, 1024 x 768, and 640 x 480.

My goal was to use a set of 10x10 frames, so I guess I would be printing larger than that and cutting them down to fit. I don't think what I did will be good enough quality. Bummer.

Unfortunately, while the idea of using the highest setting makes sense, I'm still at the skill level where I need to take a gazillion shots and obsess over all of them to find a few I like...so this will be an arduous process. :o

Nicole, here is the type of pic I have been taking. I was inspired by deliciousjones over in the other photo thread, and I've been playing around with this concept because I want to hang some shots in our dining room where we keep our wrought iron wine cabinet. (All the other photos I hang are landscapes from vacations, so this is the first time I'm actually "setting up" photos in order to display them.)

I'll link, since I don't have a photo editing program at home yet, and this is large.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a354/agreenbunny/P1010255.jpg

PinkMartini

05-07-2006, 12:46 PM

For the harder challenge- HINT- Move your subject in the light, until they see their shadow infront of them.

Ooooh I wanna participate.... I have to work tonight so it won't be tonight but I'll take some pictures tomorrow! Two questions....

1) Does the portrait HAVE to be of a person? I don't have any friends/family anywhere near by and my FH won't let me take pictures of him so the only thing I really have to use would be my animals....

2) Does the 'backlight' portrait have to be inside with some sort of studio light?

Little Angel '77

05-07-2006, 05:19 PM

Portrait can be a cat, dog, horse. person. I don't think an object counts as a portrait.

The challenges will run for a week, and after a week, anyone can post the next challenge (I don't want to be in charge, wedding season is coming up!) :)

nicole

05-07-2006, 05:23 PM

PinkMartini - If you do the backlit portrait, you won't really be able to see your FH, so maybe he'd agree to pose? I'm currently trying to talk my FH into doing it, but I was considering my cats as a backup. I think it's gotta be an animate object to be considered a portrait.

Little Angel '77

05-07-2006, 05:54 PM

Actually, we might see him depending on how he is light
Here is my first one.
http://images1.snapfish.com/346%3A27%3B84%7Ffp33%3A%3Enu%3D3235%3E993%3E47%3A% 3EWSNRCG%3D32336%3B%3A337653nu0mrj
Shutter 125
Aperture f/2.8 (to max the blur, and to let the most light in)
ISO 500 (it was sunset, I needed more light to hit the chip)
Focal Length 85 mm (fixed focal)

Little Angel '77

05-07-2006, 06:10 PM

The above is front light by the sun, no flash

Here is a real world shoot. An engagement I did again no flash.:
This one is completely backlight, see her hairlight? I moved them until they saw their shadow directly infront of them, that creates perfect hairlight :)
http://images1.snapfish.com/346%3A2827%3B%7Ffp343%3Enu%3D3233%3E5%3C9%3E35%3B% 3E23245%3C944%3C796ot1lsi
Shutter 160
F/3.2
ISO 100 (daylight- very bright out.)
Focal Lenth 70MM

***ETA- looking at this shot on my other computer, it looks a little washed out, and over exposed, or like it needs more contrast. one of my monitors isn't calbrated correctly. Depending if you are on a calibrated monitor, you will see a shot a little over or a little under exposed * Karen, are you calibrated? How's it look to you? My MAC profiles reset and I am working to recalibrate all my computers. Augh*

deliciousjones

05-07-2006, 07:43 PM

i'm calibrated (to whcc) and it looks okay to me. like you said - it looks like it could use some contrast. also, his face has a blue tint.

Little Angel '77

05-08-2006, 05:59 AM

Thanks Rachel!
Now I just have to go work on my calibration :( YUCK!

Lindsan

05-08-2006, 12:49 PM

Are there any rules to the challenge? I've been a part of a few challenges over at LJ and one of the big rules was no editing other than contrast and b/w. I think that is pretty fair since it should be a photography challenge and not a editing software challenge. Did you have any specific ideas Little Angel? What does everyone think?

Anyway, here is my portrait. Taken yesterday which was a very sunny day in a winter garden type of room (all glass walls). It's side lit, no flash, shutter: 1/80, F-stop: 5,2. It was taken with my Sony DSC W1. I have turned it to b/w in Photoshop and that is my only editing. If it isn't allowed then let me know and I'll take it down.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v454/Lindsan/176102b.jpg

BTW, the girl is my goddaughter. It was her first birthday yesterday.

nicole

05-08-2006, 04:01 PM

Ah, I thought by backlit you meant silhouette. :o

Little Angel '77

05-08-2006, 05:03 PM

I don't know about anyone else, but simple editting I don't mind? How about no HARD cor PSing? By that I mean, really working on an image for more than 1 or 2 minutes.

nicole

05-08-2006, 05:24 PM

I just saw the cutest thing. There was a baby sleeping in a carseat type thing with a teeny little puppy curled up sleeping on its lap. I wish I was brave enough to ask if I could take a picture, it would've made a cute portrait!

I don't mind simple editing, and definitely not switching to b&w or contrast. Since I dropped my camera I always have to up the contrast :rolleyes:

justHB

05-10-2006, 08:52 AM

i'm calibrated (to whcc) and it looks okay to me. like you said - it looks like it could use some contrast. also, his face has a blue tint.what she said.

KarenS

05-10-2006, 09:11 AM

Little Angel - Love the first one. I think it could have benefitted from a teeny pop of flash or a reflector tofill in his eyes, but even w/out, it's nice.

THe color on the second one looks a tiny bit bright to me - but I might need to recalibrate my monitor.

Lindsan - cute cute baby, but the image looks out of focus to me.

Here's mine. From a session yesterday - it's my favorite of the whole session. When I sized it down there are some compression lines, and I'm too lazy to fix them! :) Also the edges have been vignetted (since this is for a client) but no other PS work done.

http://www.ksimmons.com/share/sophie1.jpg

MSH

05-10-2006, 09:23 AM

I need some help girls.

I'm in the market for a digital SLR and was hoping someone in here may have som advise or comments on the two I am considering. If anyone has any experience with either the Canon EOS 20D or the Nikon D50/D70 I would really appreciate your comments.

I'm currently using a Olympus Stylus 300. This camara is great for bringing along on vacation as it is a small camara but I am finding quite a few things, which are bothering me about it, mainly issues with expossure.

I mostly will use the dSLR for personal use, but am thinking of making a move to semi-pro (as in businesswise, I still have a long way to go with my technique). I will need a camera which is good for detail shots, in different light settings and sporting events (mainly hockey and baseball).

Thank you.

KarenS

05-10-2006, 09:34 AM

Well the two cameras you'e considering are pretty different. The Canon 20D is a prosumer offering by Canon - a lot of professional wedding and portrait photogs use it - not a lot of sports shooters do because it's not fast enough.

The Nikon N70 is a consumer level camera, comparable to the Canon Digital Rebel. It's a little slower, and a little less "solidly" built. The D200 is closer to being a match for the 20D.

You'd probably be happy with either one - I personally shoot Canon now, but I shot Nikon for many years and was happy with them too. Mostly I'd say go to a camera store and hold both cameras and see how they feel in your hands. That's going to be the best way of choosing for you ... pick the one that you feel most comfortable with. Because quality wise, I don't think either is significantly enough better than the other to influence a buying decision.

Karen

ManteoChik

05-10-2006, 04:39 PM

ITA with Karen. I currently shoot with the Canon 20D and love it. I use it for everything from my graduations to weddings and engagements. I also use it for location and studio portraits.

I have also used the Nikon D70 and it was a great camera as well. Like Karen posted, I've owned both (my film was Nikon, and my digital is Canon) and I really like them both.

GeekGirl

05-10-2006, 05:36 PM

Would this be considered backlit? This is a picture I took of my Uncle Bill with my Nikon N75 and 50mm f/1.8 prime lens.

http://static.flickr.com/37/116620036_39a722b666.jpg?v=0

Koala_Gurl

05-10-2006, 06:23 PM

Here is my entry...no PS work...I figured I needed to upload something before this ended! LOL!!

http://static.flickr.com/45/144282987_2f08628805.jpg?v=0

deliciousjones

05-10-2006, 08:29 PM

i use the 20D for work (portrait work) and i'm happy with it. i'm not familiar with anything by nikon. i come from a pentax background.

perhaps purchase the d70 or the canon digital rebel and then if you decide to try to go pro, you can buy the next camera up and use the original one as your backup.

Sunshine

05-11-2006, 03:01 PM

Can anyone tell me the difference (If there is any other than the fact that the duo can be used in cellphones/compact camera's etc) between a
Memory Stick Pro
and a
Memory Stick Pro Duo?

On the back, the transfer rates were the same, the amount of photos that can be taken were the same. The difference was the price. (Both 512)
I bought the Pro duo for $36, and the Pro was $64.....

Of course the guy was of no help, he had no clue about memory cards whatsoever, so I went with the cheaper one, b/c it had the same amount of storage, and transfer rate.
So WHY would that be? Why would the duo be so much less? The only thing that seems different is that it is small for the use of smaller devices, and has an adapter to fit in my camera?!?!

Any help is MUCHLY appreciated. I am at a loss. Why would anyone buy the Pro if they could get the duo for cheaper?
TIA:D:D

Little Angel '77

05-11-2006, 07:49 PM

I might not be any help, but if I can venture a guess based on the memory cards I buy, it might have to do with their ability in tempertures to work, or not work?

I know with my SanDisc II Ultra, they work until 0 degrees (or something like that) and the SanDisc II Extremem will work 0 to -30. I know i have my numbers wrong, but the extreme costs a lot more. A lot has to do with marketing strategy. (gasp)

greenbunny

05-12-2006, 07:04 AM

Is the Canon 20D fast enough for shooting wildlife and things like that? I'm not exactly working for National Geographic :o but I have seen a lot of animals on vacation that I wanted to capture on film, and couldn't pull it off with my current camera.

deliciousjones

05-12-2006, 07:44 AM

i know that the 20d typically isn't fast enough for sports photography, but i would assume that with enough light and a fast enough lens, it would be fine for wildlife.

is it your current camera, or your current lens, that limits you from getting the shots you want?

for example, with a lens that only opens up to 3.5, it's possible that you're not able to let enough light in to get the shutter speed that you'd need to capture movement. with a faster lens, you might be able to do that.

greenbunny

05-12-2006, 09:20 AM

is it your current camera, or your current lens, that limits you from getting the shots you want?

for example, with a lens that only opens up to 3.5, it's possible that you're not able to let enough light in to get the shutter speed that you'd need to capture movement. with a faster lens, you might be able to do that.

I have an Olympus C-3000 P&S. I don't have the option of changing lenses, it doesn't take them. So I guess the answer would be both. It's a great digital for taking pictures at birthday parties and whatnot, but my hobby has now outgrown that sort of camera. I definitely want to educate myself and move into SLR.

portinastorm

05-12-2006, 11:57 AM

I have the Canon 20D and just bought a new lens for it (Tamron 28-300 mm, 3.5/6.3) and it came with a lens hood. I have seen other photographers use them, and the manual that came with the lens says to use the hood whenever possible, but what do y'all think? I have never used one with my other lenses. Are there certain situations where the lens hood is helpful and others where it is not?

Thanks!

KarenS

05-12-2006, 12:09 PM

GeekGirl - What a fabulous portrait of your Uncle. I really like it. I wouldn't consider it backlit - more sidelit. Regardless, a little cropping and tweaking and it's something I would be happy to show a client.

greenbunny - I'd say that the 20D would work well for wildlife ... unless you're trying to catch cheetas in the wild! Most of wildlife photography is a lot of hanging around and waiting for the critters to be in the right spot, anyway. :) I think with a good, sharp, fast lens, you'd do well with the 20D.

portinastorm - lens hoods generally serve two purposes. The first is to eliminate sunflare in images. Mostly you'd use a lenshood on a wider lens for this purpose. The wider a lens is, the more likely you are to get sunflare. So using it with a wide lens on a sunny day is a good idea. The other purpose a lot of pros use them for is to protect the lens if it gets dropped or banged around - the lens hood will absorb the impact and break before the lens will. However, you have to be careful becuase of the lens hood is not the right size for the lens, you'll get vignetting in your image, which is not good. To be perfectly honest, I rarely use a lens hood, unless I'm shooting outside on a sunny day. Otherwise, I find them annoying and clunky. But that's just me. I know lots of other people who swear by them.

Karen

Sunshine

05-12-2006, 02:00 PM

Thank you Little Angel '77!! I will look into that:D
It's the best suggestion I have been offered:D I cant find anything other than that:(
I actually went ahead and bought the Pro Duo:)
Thanks again for your help!

greenbunny

05-12-2006, 02:23 PM

I'd say that the 20D would work well for wildlife ... unless you're trying to catch cheetas in the wild!

:D Yeah, that's not in my budget. I'm thinking more along the lines of pelicans, orcas, reindeer...much slower creatures. Maybe a hummingbird if I get wild and crazy. :p

GeekGirl

05-12-2006, 03:08 PM

GeekGirl - What a fabulous portrait of your Uncle. I really like it. I wouldn't consider it backlit - more sidelit. Regardless, a little cropping and tweaking and it's something I would be happy to show a client.

*blushes*

Wow, thank you! I take that as a pretty high compliment. Sometimes I get discouraged, because my halfway decent to total crap picture ratio is pretty embarrassing - but it makes me feel so much better to know that somewhere deep down in me there is something worth working on! :D

ManteoChik

05-12-2006, 06:18 PM

Here are my portraits:

http://images1.snapfish.com/346%3A6%3B535%7Ffp345%3Enu%3D324%3B%3E997%3E%3B%3A 6%3EWSNRCG%3D3233575598%3C89nu0mrj

http://images1.snapfish.com/346%3A6%3B533%7Ffp346%3Enu%3D324%3B%3E997%3E%3B%3A 6%3EWSNRCG%3D323359344487%3Bnu0mrj

Khokho'smomy

05-13-2006, 07:05 AM

Hello everyone,

Im Chloe and im impressed with all your photos. wow really talented u guys. I only have a p&s kodak easyshare, I wonder if this camera can possibly do something like focus on my subject while blurr the background alil? Im just a beginner thats why Im starting with this p&s. I want to do some nice portraits of my 2 yr old lil boy, if its possible.I hope you dont mind my ignorance for this subject matter. I really appreciate any help and suggestions.
Good Day yall!

Little Angel '77

05-13-2006, 09:53 AM

Chloe,
It is possible to do with a P&S, does it have a knob with multiple settings? Try turning it and putting it on the picture of a person (the head). Most P&S have the abilty to do more than people know.

Great job everyone.
Manteo Chick, I would crop your photo of the two on the grass, just a little tighter, to much grass for my personal taste.

MSH

05-13-2006, 11:30 AM

I just wanted to post and thank all of you for your oppinion on the Canon vs. Nikon SLRs. I have decided on the Nikon D70 as it felt great in my hand and the controls very easy to get used to. My main problem with the Canon XT had nothing to do with the fuctionality of the camara but (and this will sound silly but I am sure you pro photographers would understand) is the grib was horrible. I have long piano fingers and couldn't comfortably hold on to the camara. The only Canon which was comfortable to hold was the 30D. At this time it would be far to advanced for my needs.

Thank you everyone :)

Khokho'smomy

05-13-2006, 12:06 PM

Thanks Little Angel 77
I just got this camera today so I really dont know it well yet. Hubby got me this Kodak Easyshare C340, I would have wanted the C360 but it was sold out. So anyways I think theres not much difference with the 2 except the memory.
I was reading the manual and it said about (Portrait - Full frame portraits of people ; Use Telephoto to exaggerate background blur) what is that Telephoto thing? I really dont know.

KarenS

05-13-2006, 01:49 PM

My main problem with the Canon XT had nothing to do with the fuctionality of the camara but (and this will sound silly but I am sure you pro photographers would understand) is the grib was horrible. I have long piano fingers and couldn't comfortably hold on to the camara.Totally makes sense. I have the opposite problem you do ...I have short stubby little fingers so most pro cameras are hard for me to hold. I think you made a good choice! :)

Karen

mommycal

05-15-2006, 08:05 PM

Don't even know where to begin. I need so much help it's not funny. Just got the canon rebel and I'm thrilled yet scared at the same time because I feel like I have so much to learn.

Little Angel '77, we're neighbors. :)

deliciousjones

05-15-2006, 09:25 PM

mommycal: read the manual from start to finish and then read understanding exposure. that should give you a good start. :)

KarenS

05-15-2006, 09:29 PM

Take lots and lots of photos. That's the best way to learn. Take photos ... look at them, see which ones work, and then try to duplicate them. The more photos you take and look at, the better you'll get.

Karen

GeekGirl

05-16-2006, 07:38 AM

Mommycal, we all have to start from somewhere! People laugh at me because I take so many pictures - I literally don't leave the house without my camera. I'm finding that at the point where I am, I can usually get one or two decent pictures per roll of film - and maybe one or two really nice pictures per three or four rolls of film. I'm still learning, and have a long way to go. But it's really exciting when you see something you want to shoot, and you remember what settings to put your camera at to get the best exposure - and then you get the picture back and it's a great picture! It makes all the crappy shots that didn't turn out worthwhile.

GeekGirl

05-16-2006, 07:42 AM

Karen - you mentioned that you liked the photo of my uncle, and that with some tweaking it would be a great picture. This is the next step that I have alot of trouble with. What would you do to the picture to "finish" it?

nicole

05-16-2006, 07:54 AM

Any new challange? I didn't get a chance to do the portrait, but I really want to try whatever's next.

mommycal

05-16-2006, 10:18 AM

what are some quick tip and favorite settings that you find you use a lot.

Also, what do you recommed I purchase as a memory card? TIA for your help.

nicole

05-16-2006, 11:42 AM

mommycal - I have a high speed memory card that I like. Also, get more memory than you think you need. I use my macro setting all the time. (My digital camera isn't a Rebel, but I do have a film camera that is.)

emschwar

05-18-2006, 01:14 PM

I finally have something to post for the challenge! I finally got some good light and the subject in a good mood!
http://images.costcophotocenter.com/346%3A%3B%3B532%7Ffp4%3Enu%3D3235%3E33%3B%3E437%3E WSNRCG%3D323256653847%3Cnu0mrj

And, while I'm posting, let me ask a couple questions. First, what WB setting would I use for indoors with natural light? I took these today, and when we were close to the window, like in the one above, the WB looks right, but further away, the tones look off:
http://images.costcophotocenter.com/346%3A%3B%3B532%7Ffp4%3Enu%3D3235%3E33%3B%3E437%3E WSNRCG%3D32325665375%3A3nu0mrj
I love that picture though, it's totally Noah. (He also made me take pictures of his sippy cup, binkies and Little People. Thank goodness for digital!)

Also, any tips for photographing toddlers? By the time I get things focused (I do autofocus 99.9% of the time because I just don't have the time to get things focused manually) he's moved!

Little Angel '77

05-18-2006, 06:28 PM

wow, I've been MIA. Sorry
Um, Mommycal, i got your message, I'll respond when I get a minute, but you can email me through my progfile, I am more likely yo get a chance to respond. Wedding season is in full swing (and guess who just went FULL TIME).

Cut images of the little guy emily!!!!!

Okay next challenge (if anyone has any ideas- post them)

Movement. This one is a little harder, but I am looking to capture movement, not see camera movement a.k.a camera shake. I'll be back with mine tomorrow.

Hint: Place your camera in a still place and photograph something moving. don't must move your camera. up your aperture, slow your shutter. I just learned to do this, so its not as easy as you think.

its called drag the shutter.

nicole

05-20-2006, 09:14 AM

I've never tried this before, but here's my first attempt at shooting "movement." Boring subject, yes, but I have chores to do today! I will try to take more soon.

The colors/contrast might be off because I'm working on a laptop and it's really hard to tell what the picture actually looks like.

ETA: oops, this was 1/20, f3.2

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c256/goddessnike13/NWR/IMG_3491smallcontrast.jpg

Traciann

05-21-2006, 11:53 PM

can someone help me?

I currently have a N75, which I love. I use it as a point and shoot camera. I love the sharpness I get, as well as the super fast speed because I have a small child. I mainly just want good pictures. I have been looking at the 50mm 1.8 lense because it seems to get rave reviews, but after doing some searching people have mentioned it takes practice using it. Would it be worth it in your opinion for my needs to purchase the 50mm?

We have a super duper slow something or other digital that I refuse to use that the inlaws bought for us over a year ago. it would be nice to have the option of digital especially with only having to print the best pictures (we cannot afford the dslr) and I would love a more compact camera. Are there any reasonably priced digitial cameras that might fit my needs?

I have always been so in love with my N75 because of the fast speed, but I don't really use the camera for its full purposes, which is why I am wording if a digital camera might be a option?

Thanks,
Traci

GeekGirl

05-22-2006, 06:38 AM

I have the N75, and I also love it. I would have to say my favorite part about using the N75 vs my old digital point and shoot (a Kodak POS) is having complete control over my depth of field. I purchased the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 from Amazon (I think it was about $100) per Karen's recommendation, and it is an awesome lens! I had previously been working with a Vivtar 20-80mm f/3.8 lens, and now it's packed away and I don't even use it. The pictures I get with my 50mm prime are so clear and sharp, and I have so many more options in low-light situations! I haven't found it difficult to use at all, and if anything, I think that having a prime lens has helped me to think more carefully about how I want my shots framed. I can't rave about it enough!

As for a cheap digital point and shoot - sure, there are reasonably priced ones. I was recently at Best Buy and saw a Canon-something or other for about $175 (I'd like to say it was 4.0 mp, but I may be mistaken). In the digital PaS arena, I would recommend a Canon over a Nikon - there seems to be a longer delay in taking the picture with the Nikons vs the Canons. And I would absolutely not recommend a Kodak. In my experience, I've found the Kodak digital cameras to be hard to work with, and the software is truly awful. But hey, I'm far from the expert round these parts. Karen will more than likely make some awesome recommendations, and I would feel completely comfortable looking at whatever she mentions. She has yet to steer me wrong! :D

Little Angel '77

05-22-2006, 08:12 PM

You can't go wrong with b uying the 50mm 1.8. Its 75.00. Cheap plastic lens, that takes great pictures! I don't know why some said it "takes practice?"
I think they just meant, to understand what they are doing - and how the f stop works., That's all.

Back to the challenge, here is one from my May 14th wedding.
http://images1.snapfish.com/346%3B585%3C9%7Ffp33%3A%3Enu%3D3235%3E993%3E47%3A% 3EWSNRCG%3D32337746333%3B8nu0mrj

No PS, except the border.
This is a natural light shot, no flash inside, at shutter 1/4 Aperture f/4.5 at iso 1250
Its a harder shot to take, it took me a long time to master 'draggin the shutter' I set the camera up on the piano nearby and gently squeezed the trigger.

Koala_Gurl

05-22-2006, 10:35 PM

Maybe the "practice" has to do with the fact that it is a fixed focal length lens? That you have to move your body to arrange the composition?

I let my mom borrow my camera to take some pictures w/ that lens on, and she was going nuts with it (meaning, it was driving her nuts!) :)

Lindsan

05-23-2006, 02:50 AM

I butchered this challenge. It's out of focus and a little too far away from the stage. But I thought the idea of the picture was good at least.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v454/Lindsan/179057.jpg

portinastorm

05-23-2006, 11:02 AM

Hi guys, can I join?

Here is a photo of my DH's little brother from the past weekend. It certainly captures his "energy" though I do wish he were just a little less blurry. THe planted flip-flop foot makes me chuckle.

http://images1.snapfish.com/346%3B6395%3B%7Ffp346%3Enu%3D323%3B%3E735%3E59%3B% 3EWSNRCG%3D3233774%3A3594%3Bnu0mrj

And thanks, KarenS, for the info about the lens hood. Very helpful.

t3h_wookiee

05-25-2006, 12:33 PM

KarenS

05-25-2006, 01:15 PM

Get the IS lens. If you need the flexibility, the IS lens will help you more in low light by stabilizing your shots! :)

BTW, here's my motion image:
http://www.ksimmons.com/share/KTW06.jpg

ManteoChik

05-25-2006, 04:27 PM

Motion:

http://images1.snapfish.com/346%3B7%3C%3B93%7Ffp345%3Enu%3D324%3B%3E997%3E%3B% 3A6%3EWSNRCG%3D3233575598%3C8%3Bnu0mrj

http://images1.snapfish.com/346%3B7%3C%3B93%7Ffp343%3Enu%3D324%3B%3E997%3E%3B% 3A6%3EWSNRCG%3D32335755%3B4556nu0mrj

Little Angel '77

05-26-2006, 12:22 PM

I need help figuring out which lens to buy....It'll be used almost completely outdoors, so there won't be a lot of low-light conditions. I'd love to get the f/2.8 version, but there's no way I can afford that! :)

Honestly, the 70-200 might be to much for your needs- what about getting a wide angle lens (Canon 10-22) is one of my favorites!) so you can take it all in! If not, get the IS version of the 70-200

Also, does anyone know if the Lexar cards are still having problems with the Canons? I may end up just buying a 2GB SanDisk instead.

Not sure- I have a few of each.
And another I just thought of: Any recommendations for a fairly light-weight, and not too expensive tri-pod? I just have that tiny table-top one that came with the starter bag. No ideas on a tripod.

skyblu

05-28-2006, 10:37 PM

Little Angel, since we're in the same town, any chance I could buy you dinner and/or a couple of drinks and you can show me a few cheap tricks on my camera in return?

I'm not looking to be a pro, but I think I have an "eye" (my background is in design) and I'd like to take better photos. All I end up with is frustration!

PM me if you're interested! TIA!

Ummm

05-28-2006, 11:58 PM

I need help figuring out which lens to buy. I'm leaning towards the L one, but I'm not sure. I have the Rebel XT, and will be going on a road trip from OK to Seattle, via the Pacific Coast Highway, so I want to be able to take some great shots. I really need something other than the kit lens, which is currently all I have. It'll be used almost completely outdoors, so there won't be a lot of low-light conditions. I'd love to get the f/2.8 version, but there's no way I can afford that! :)

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007Y794O/ref=wl_it_dp/104-6565587-4320741?%5Fencoding=UTF8&colid=26JE96U4UW25X&coliid=I12WCVUBGTK9TX&v=glance&n=502394)

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM telephoto lens (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000053HH5/ref=wl_it_dp/104-6565587-4320741?%5Fencoding=UTF8&colid=26JE96U4UW25X&coliid=I2AXT2QH21DA18&v=glance&n=502394)

Also, does anyone know if the Lexar cards are still having problems with the Canons? I may end up just buying a 2GB SanDisk instead.

And another I just thought of: Any recommendations for a fairly light-weight, and not too expensive tri-pod? I just have that tiny table-top one that came with the starter bag.

Lens - i haven't heard much about the EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM but i've heard good things about the 70-200 f4 one. although if you're going to take travle/landscape shots, personally i'd get something wider. what other lenses have you got? what's your budget?

CF cards - personally i use Ridata and Kingston Pro and have no problems so far. It's up to you whether you want one big card, or several smaller ones. There are advantages and disadvantages for both. If shoot with one big card and it goes bad, then you may lose everything. If shoot with multipe cards, there is a higher risk of losing cards since you have to keep track of them.

Tripod - will the tripod be in the car most of the time or you'd be carring it? personally i have a manfrotto/bogen one, just the basic standing one, but it's not light (light and sturdy ones are expansive!). However at the same time, you don't want to get one too filmsy or it'd defeat the purpose if it is not stable. some tricks is to hang a bag of sand (or something heavy) to stablize the tripod. you also need to decide on what tripod heads to get - there are the 3-pan ones, ball heads, etc etc. i don't know much about tripod since i only use it when i have to.

have fun on your trip!

deliciousjones

05-29-2006, 06:47 AM

t3h_wookiee

05-29-2006, 11:55 PM

Thanks guys! I'm looking at a wide angle lens now, and that seems to be the front-runner. I'd prefer to spend under $600, but I can go a little above it (my AmEx will not be happy by the end of this month! lol ).

I was thinking of just getting another 1GB card. Maybe a 2, but no higher for sure.

On the tri-pod-honestly I have no idea! :o I just know that my hands can be really shaky normally, so I thought it would be useful to have one. I haven't given them much thought yet beyond that. I'll have to do some research on that.

Little Angel '77

05-30-2006, 06:33 AM

ditto on what Ummm said about CF cards. Pros and cons to using big and small cards. I had a 4gig that crapped out on me, but at the same time, I've lost a couple of my 1gigs.

Kingston cards were on sale last week at buy.com!
What type of cards did you have fail?

If it's the lexar canon combination, that is known to happen. I have a mix of all cards for this reason.
Since this is a learning thread, I thought I might take a minute to talk about getting into the business, and thinking it's 'easy'

I was on the beach this weekend, and had this shirt on that said "I shoot brides". Someone said "oh are you a photographer?" I said, yes... and then all of a sudden there wete 10 other people around me saying "oh I want to be a photographer, that's such a cool job". I don't know if it's because I am in the industry now, but I don't think people know what its really like to be a photographer. I am sure other people can post on this topic but here is the down and dirty (from my point of view only) of being a photographer (especially a wedding photographer). This is a learning thread, so I hope no one thinks its an easy job and I wanted to shed light on it. I also don't want to start a debate, but this is *my* take. (Steps on soap box..)

You need the patients of a saint. Things don't always work, be it computer programs, cameras, dvd writers, labs and album companies. On any given week I might have to reprint an album page (or an an entire book). Re Edit an entire wedding due to a program losing saved changes, or have to back everything up again because my hard drive failed. I am not saying all these things happen to me, but they happen. It's frustrating. I might upload a web gallery and have to re upload it, becuase everything it out of order.

You need customer service and a can do attitude. You deal with PEOPLE. The public, and they can be rude, quirky, obnixious, mean, cold.. you name it. Not to say I don't have the clients who are SO sweet, that I love, but you also get a few weird ones, that complain to complain, to get something free. You need to be able to say .. NO!... um, NO! Nope, sorry!:D

You need MONEY. LOTS AND LOTS of money. :eek: If your digital- you need more. Than, when you think you are financial set, you need more because your 1800.00 lens just fell on the ground and broke. Your new 30D warrenty just ran out, and you need your camera to get fixed and its going to cost you 125.00 for Canon to just look at it. You need back up equipment, CF cards, computers. Karen can probably talk more about how much business sense it takes.

You won't become rich doing this. :mad: Yes- some people DO get rich, from selling DVDs and name recognition, but those are a small percent! All to often I see people taking photography classes, buying a 1300.00 SLR camera and going out to do one wedding. They think... this is great! I buy a camera for 1300.00 a couple 100.00 CF cards, and start charging to do weddings. They think, wow, a few weddings at 1000.00 for a wedding, and I'll make 10K. Doesn't work like that... sorry! First off the government gets a BIG BIG piece of that. and this is how wedding photos sometimes get ruined.
Perfect example of this problem. My college roomates brother went to photography SCHOOL! in New york, 4 years. Shot her wedding and his pictures came out fuzzy, because he couldn't react to the speed and pace of a wedding. Its VERY VERY hard work ... and I hope no one thinks it's easy. I know I didn't think it was *that* hard, but it's tough. You deal with people, and personailities and you need to be a bit of a take charge "say no" type of person to get into photography. People will try to take advantage of you at times.

So those are just my thoughts. I am sure some of the other pros can shed light on it.

I don't want to start a debate, we can all have opinions. My opinion is that it's really hard work, and it takes the above things, if you feel otherwise- feel free to post...

KarenS

05-30-2006, 10:35 AM

I don't think people know what its really like to be a photographer.Oh most people have no freaking clue. They think that because they have one camera and their family says that they take nice photos that they can go out and charge money for it. And then they "start a business" and charge a sum that means they're losing money on every wedding, but they have no idea. It's a lot of hard work and a lot of money.

Some things that the "newbies" don't think about:
Backup equipment - What do you do if your camera fails in the middle of a wedding? Or your flash? Professional photographers usually have at least 2 and sometimes 3 camera bodies and multiple lenses and flashes just in case something goes wrong

Taxes - The average self employed person pays 40%+ of what they make in taxes. By the time you add up taxes, overhead, expenses, etc., there's not a lot left.

Cost of doing business - Again, people have no clue. I work out of my home and I still have to make $340 *per day* (based on a 5 day a week work week) just to keep my business running. Advertising runs me $600-$800 a month, depending on the time of year. Cost of equipment. Cost of computers. Cost of samples. Cost of albums and prints. Cost of office supplies. The list goes on and on and on. My overhead expenses account for 27% of my gross income.

Going back to what Little Angel said: People skills - not only are you dealing with people of all kinds, but you're dealing with people on a wedding day, if you're a wedding photographer. People are stressed, emotional, sometimes a little crazy. And you have to be the beacon of calm in all of that. You cannot get flustered or angry or frustrated.

There's another thing that people don't think about and something that I've had to deal with recently several times: When you go into wedding photography, you'd better understand that you're working Saturdays. And if it's your full time gig, then you're working EVERY Saturday. And you need to understand that means that you often won't be able to make family events, to go to kids sports events, to take vacations when your spouse has a paid holiday (cause holiday weekends are big wedding weekends), to do a lot of things that people who work a 9-5 job do. Lately I've seen a bunch of brides who are *really* upset because their photographer cancelled out on them. Many of them said that their photogs told them they had "personal commitments", which is why they were breaking their contracts. And that's the mark of an amateur who isn't serious about the biz. I have missed weddings, funerals, parties, reunions, and all kinds of other things because I've booked a wedding FIRST. And my family knows that if they want me at an event, then it needs to be planned well in advance and I need to know about it to block my calendar. But often they don't plan that far in advance and that means I miss out. And if someone isn't willing to accept that, then they're not ready to be a wedding photographer.

I dunno. There's so much that just can't be expressed in a single post. It's hard work. And it's expensive.

Karen

calliope_muses

05-30-2006, 03:56 PM

Taxes - The average self employed person pays 40%+ of what they make in taxes. By the time you add up taxes, overhead, expenses, etc., there's not a lot left.

Cost of doing business - Again, people have no clue. I work out of my home and I still have to make $340 *per day* (based on a 5 day a week work week) just to keep my business running. Advertising runs me $600-$800 a month, depending on the time of year. Cost of equipment. Cost of computers. Cost of samples. Cost of albums and prints. Cost of office supplies. The list goes on and on and on. My overhead expenses account for 27% of my gross income.

This was one of the first things my lighting professor told us - if you're at all serious about running your own photography-based business, get yourself over to the University's business school and take courses that will teach you how to do so. I don't know how many students actually took his advice, but I think it's sound.

This why I'm sticking to amateur - too much work required if I do it as a professional! ;)

Little Angel '77

05-30-2006, 06:05 PM

. People are stressed, emotional, sometimes a little crazy. ...

Karen
Oh Karen, how well you put it. The mother of one of the two at a recent wedding... words CAN NOT describe.

I am sorry I felt the need to get on my soap box, I am tired of feeling everywhere I turn someone *else* is a photographer or lawyer. We are all going to be taking pictures of each other in court :)

Koala_Gurl

05-30-2006, 08:19 PM

I love weddings, and would love to be involved with weddings. BUT, I don't think I EVER would. I am the most patient person I know, but I don't think I would ever want to be responsible for ruining someone's day. I know all brides aren't bridezillas, but for me it would take just one. :)

Feel free to vent / educate away! Photography is just something that is fun for me (and I love buying equipment to play with.) Luckily, for now, I can afford my hobby (ask me again after baby #2 is born! LOL!) Besides, with 2 under 2, I won't have time for my hobby for a bit.

About the business side of things...I think (totally a generalization), but in my experiences, many "artsy" types aren't naturally interested in the business side of things (maybe why this seems so relevant with photography??) I know it is a generalization, but it is just how it appears to me from what I have seen. I know there are many business-savy creative people out there (and probably successful at that.)

My ILs got involved with a winemaker who needed some financial backing. He was all about crafting the wine, and had not a lick of business sense. My ILs are total business people, and lets just say the relationship ended on a not so nice note, since even w/ help, the wine guy couldn't get the business side of things.

Does that make sense???

t3h_wookiee

06-02-2006, 11:02 PM

Oh man I would never want to do weddings. If I ever did start a business instead of just doing this for myself, I'd still stick with landscapes and wildlife. That's my passion and what I'm good at. But that's a big if. :)

Little Angel '77

06-04-2006, 10:59 AM

You know what's so hard, is when it RAINS! I have had almost EVERY wedding this season in the rain! I am so beyond being creative at this point indoors. Well, lesson this week... when life gives you lemons, .... what are you going to make??

Maybe this weeks challenge should be "outside the box"
It's so easy to put people in "good locations". Lets take pictures of things "outside the norm" Here;s my example for the week.

It was pouring rain this weekend, no where in the Country Club had a good spot, and the only good spot was taken by the cocktail hour.

So life handed me lemons, and I had to find away to get good shots, without the sugar and water (if you catch my drift..) (No outside.. no sun, no pretty flowers.)

Does it work?
http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h221/cordelephoto/IMG_0754a.jpg

So- instead of putting something in a "normal" place for a photo -lets see the creativity FLOW...

KarenS

06-04-2006, 11:56 AM

Shoot in the rain. Buy some HUMONGOUS white umbrellas and send them outside (if it's just drizzling, not pouring). Or put them on the porch with the gray skies in the background. REmember that the rain is part of their wedding day - so take advantage of it.

Karen

webmistress

06-04-2006, 11:46 PM

I hope you guys please keep posting the hard knoecks of photography. I love it as a hobby....and plan to take courses and improve and upgrade....but I know I can't and won't do it on a buisiness level.

I would just like to shoot family/friend events....and sell photos online somehow.

I wouldnt mind working as an assistant to a professional, actually that's what I did, and I know it's not for me on that level...

Little Angel '77

06-05-2006, 03:05 PM

Oh Karen, I wish it were that easy. I begged, pleaded with those two :) no luck. I have had only one couple willing to go out in the drizzle.

Luckiest Girl
Why were you shooting at ISO 800. Did you use flash for this shot?

To me, that room looks really bright? No? Since this is a learning thread, sometimes you need to just ignore your meter. I can't explain how or why I know when to ignore my meter, but you can't always go by what it says.

KarenS

06-08-2006, 06:12 AM

Those dots are dust on your sensor. If you shoot with the lens stopped down (at f8, f11, f16, etc) you will see the dust spots. There are kits you can buy to remove the dust, or you can simply open the shutter and blow gently.

Karen

nicole

06-08-2006, 06:44 AM

My camera broke yesterday :( I'll have to get a new one before I can participate in the challenge. I've been wanting a digital SLR for awhile now, but with house hunting and the wedding coming up it just isn't feasable, so I guess I'll be getting another P&S, though I'd like a nicer one than I had (Canon PowerShot A75)

Does anybody love their (still currently available) higher-end P&S (preferably Canon since I'm familiar with them)? I'm looking at an S3 1S right now. I've never tried a Nikon and might be okay too.

Hey, just out of curiousity, does anyone have the Canon 5D? We were looking at it at the camera store yesterday and the 35mm sensor is pretty cool. The pricetag however.... woo!

MeTheGirlie

06-08-2006, 07:07 AM

Karen
I was checking out your website http://www.karenandco.com/, and I have a question about what type of lens you used for "Jessica & Dave" in the dark brick back staircase (I'm not sure if that is or if it's an alley - the last box) but what a supercool photo!

KarenS

06-08-2006, 07:39 AM

I have a question about what type of lens you used for "Jessica & Dave" in the dark brick back staircase
Oh thanks! It is in a dark staircase - it's the staircase up to the second level of Muriel's restaurant in New Orleans. I used my 20mm 2.8 lens, shot RAW, and then played with the levels and shadows before converting it to jpeg. I absolutely adore the 20mm lens. I use it *so* much at weddings.

does anyone have the Canon 5D? We were looking at it at the camera store yesterday and the 35mm sensor is pretty cool. The pricetag however.... woo!I will have one by September. I borrowed one from a friend and shot it for a wedding and fell in love with it. I hadn't realized how much I missed having a full 35mm sensor until I was able to shoot one in digital. I can't wait to get mine. The only thing I'm dreading is that the file sizes are HUGE! I'm going to need that much more storage. What the heck - it's only $$, right? :D

Karen

deliciousjones

06-08-2006, 08:35 AM

i've been eyeing the 5D as well. i love the idea of full-frame. i usually bring a film camera with me to shoots just so i have the full-frame option if i need it. i'm not sure that i'll make the jump just yet, though, just because i only do portrait work and i'm not sure that it's what i need right now. it's definitely what i WANT, but not what i NEED.

i do think that i'll pick up a 30D soon and retire/sell a 20D. i'm excited about the spot metering capability although i haven't used one yet so i don't have first hand experience with it. i use my handheld light meter and it would be nice to not have to use it so much.

nicole

06-08-2006, 12:16 PM

Karen - I heard about the large file sizes - something like 45 megs in RAW? Holy crap! Do you have one of those hard drive things? I think our wedding photog has some kind of small hard drive that he can carry so he can back things up if need be.

Maybe when one of you pros has a minute, I'd love to know just what the heck RAW is. I've read a few things, but I really don't "get" it. :)

greenbunny

06-08-2006, 01:16 PM

i do think that i'll pick up a 30D soon and retire/sell a 20D.

Post if you do! I've been thinking about buying used, and a 20D is one of the models I was interested in.

KarenS

06-08-2006, 04:12 PM

RAW is the digital version of a negative. Hm. I understand how it works, but I'm not sure I'll be any good at explaining it ... I'll try! :)

When the camera records an image in jpeg or tiff, it records it with formatting. It recording the image according to the exposure settings, color settings, sharpness settings, etc. on your camera. You can still change those to *some* degree by altering the jpeg or tiff file in PhotoShop or some other program - you can brighten or darken, change the tone of the image, etc. But making a change can degrade the image and if you change it too often or too much, you lose quality.

When the camera records an image in RAW it is recording it in an unformatted, uncompressed form. The whole image is saved along with *notes* about how you intended it to look (rather than applying those settings directly to the image, as above). So when you download it and open it in a program that can read RAW files, you can see how you originally took the photo, or you can change the exposure, the color temperature, the sharpness, the curves, etc. Then you apply those settings and create a jpeg from the RAW file. But the RAW file itself *never changes* - which is crucial. So you can change the settings as many times as you like to get different variations of an image (color, black and white, warm toned, cold toned, etc., etc.) and each one is a 1st generation of the *original* RAW file, rather than being a second generation or third generation copy.

Does that make any sense?

The file size will vary with the amount of information in the file, how high the ISO is, etc. Files range from 9MB to about 20MB.

Karen

Sunshine

06-09-2006, 02:14 PM

Everyone I talk to has a different opinion, and the more people in RL that I ask, the more confused I get.

I own a Minolta film SLR camera. Minolta I guess has given the rights over to Sony, who will continue making lenses and bodies that will go with the Minolta's already out there.....Because of this I thought I would take the time to research other brands out there, and also, havebeen looking into DSLR's as well.

I guess my question is, should I spend the money to buy a DSLR body.........or should I buy a new film body and spend the extra money on better glass?

I use my camera now mainly for portraits, and then also a few landscape photos........I want to get into more portraits, and also start shooting events for friends and family, as a few have asked:)

So, what do You use? What would you suggest?
Thank you SO MUCH:)

KarenS

06-09-2006, 03:51 PM

I would not buy a film body. Manufacturers are announcing that they are no longer making film bodies left and right. It wont' be long before Nikon and Canon both only make a limited number of them for specialists. Many of the great film companies have already stopped or limited production of film ... Kodak has thinned it's line considerably, especially in professional films. Ilford and Agfa both have reduced their production of film. I am serious when I say that in another 10 years (at the very most - more than likely before then) film and film cameras will be specialty items.

If you want to do this professionally (or semi-professionally) you need to invest in digital.

Karen

Sunshine

06-09-2006, 04:33 PM

Thank you Karen!
I think I will wait to make my purchase and see what Sony comes out with. I would love to stay Sony so that I could use the lenses I already have for my Minolta....

ETA: I think I will see if I can still find a Minolta Maxxum 7D too. If not, I can always buy what Sony comes out with!
I was also looking at the Digital Rebel XT (canon) and an Olympus E500. Does anyone have experience with these cameras?

Winter Biscuit

06-09-2006, 07:16 PM

Just wondering if anyone else with a Canon Digital Rebel XT has had any issues with the error code 05 popping up?? I keep getting this error code. Apparently, Err 05 means that something obstructed the built-in flash's automatic pop-up operation. To fix it, the owner's manual suggests turning the camera off, and then back on again. I've done that, and it doesn't work. I sent Canon an email (camera is still under warranty - just bought it in January) and they said that if it happens again, we should remove the lens, the battery and the CF card and let the camera sit for 20 minutes, then see if that resolves the issue. It doesn't, so our next step is to send the camera in to be examined. I'm not too thrilled about that, as my camera could be gone for as long as 2-3 months and I can't imagine spending most of the summer w/o a camera. Yet, I want it fixed/repaired since I spent a nice chunk of change on this camera.

The thing that confuses me is that it doesn't happen ALL the time. And it doesn't happen when I am only shooting w/ flash. I could be outside shooting pics of my DD playing in the sunlight, and the error code will come on. So I'll try turning it off and then back on, to no avail. So I put my camera away and maybe the next day it will work fine, as if nothing had ever happened. Then suddenly it will happen again, with no warning. There's no way to predict when it will come on and lock the camera up. I'm concerned that if I send it in to Canon to get examined, they might turn it on and it will work fine and they'll send it back without ever fixing anything.

I was just wondering if anyone else has experienced a problem with this error code, and how you handled it?? I'm doing a search on the web now, but haven't come up with anything yet.