Any photographers in the house?

DF7 wrote:
Blotto The Clown wrote:

I am planning on getting the 1.4 50mm myself.

Be aware that the 50mm is not a good general purpose lens on a crop body. If I had to do it all over again I would go with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.

kinda why I havent got it yet actually, but thanks for the advice. So many lens and so little time! I really wish all the modern features of the 7d were packed into the 5d, it would have made that decision so much easier. Getting the features+the full frame would have been nice. As it stands I got the 7d and told myself to invest in the L lens when I buy so I can one day step up to full frame and have some lens to bring with me.

Unless you're shooting landscapes routinely, the crop sensor shouldn't be that much of an issue.

Bear in mind though that I have the opposite opinion from DF7, I find my 50mm to be a wonderful general purpose lens even though it's effectively an 80mm on my 1.6 crop factor XTi. It's actually an EF lens that I originally purchased for my non-crop EOS 620 (film). I vastly prefer it now with the longer effective range, and use it much more often than when it was a true 50mm.

I suppose it's all in what and how you shoot.

I think it makes sense to get expensive lenses if they allow you to take pictures that you couldn't take with consumer gear. For example, if I'd like to take long-distance sports shots with a lot of bokeh to isolate the subject, so I'm going to need a long zoom with a F/2.8 aperture. But the cost of one of those lenses makes me hesitate.

I'd also buy better glass if I knew that the reason I'm not getting awesome results is because of the quality of the lens, but that's not a problem for me yet. On the other hand, if it's a lens you're going to use a lot and will have for 20 years, it's pretty cheap over the long haul versus buying a cheaper lens now that you'll want to trade for something better down the road.

DF7 wrote:
Blotto The Clown wrote:

I am planning on getting the 1.4 50mm myself.

Be aware that the 50mm is not a good general purpose lens on a crop body. If I had to do it all over again I would go with the Sigma 30mm f/1.4.

Got this lens a year or so ago....only leaves my camera if the focal length forces me to.

DF7 wrote:

Anyone know any good photography forums to lurk on? I've been lurking on Fred Miranda for the past year or so, but I'm getting sick of the snobby attitude they have. When every answer to the question "What should I get to take a picture of my kids?" is "Oh, you'll need a 70-200 f/2.8 IS for that, or maybe a 400L*" you know they are elitist.

*Really expensive lenses.

After lurking for a few years on potn, I can hardly stand the vocal majority of people willing to spend thousands on camera equipment and expect it to make their pics better. It's littered with pictures of batteries and focus test charts...There are real photogs there too, but they are hard to sort out from the trolls and gear heads. (can you tell how I really feel?)

I'm actually really diggin the photography sub-reddits to be honest. Lots of real people trying to make the best out of what hey have, and while there is the occasional push for gear its much less pronounced. Reddit being what it is, the answer is much more likely to be "You're doing it wrong" rather than "What do you expect, you're shooting a kit lens."

pol wrote:

Reddit being what it is, the answer is much more likely to be "You're doing it wrong" rather than "What do you expect, you're shooting a kit lens."

Nutty stuff. A long time ago I posted a link to a professional war photographer who shot with simple point-and-shoots. His pictures were great because he had a great eye for the right moment to shoot and he was shooting interesting subjects. You give a good photographer a box with a hole in it, he or she is going to take better pictures than the untalented guy with the top equipment.

Funkenpants wrote:

Nutty stuff. A long time ago I posted a link to a professional war photographer who shot with simple point-and-shoots. His pictures were great because he had a great eye for the right moment to shoot and he was shooting interesting subjects. You give a good photographer a box with a hole in it, he or she is going to take better pictures than the untalented guy with the top equipment.

Yeah, in the 4 months I've been doing sports photography, I can see a huge difference in my shots, even with the same equipment. I knew I needed a decent lens to be able to pull in enough light to get hockey shots and still be able to keep my shutter speed up, but the difference in the composition, etc. between my shots in January and my shots last week are pronounced. I've learned to anticipate the players' movement better, learned when to take shots (faceoff shots are boring, 2 seconds *after* faceoff shots are interesting), and so on. None of that has anything to do with the lens and everything to do with me.

I've learned enough to know I've got a long way to go, but it's been a lot of fun so far.

The Canon 50 f/1.4 is a great portrait lens on a 1.6 sensor body though.

I got the Canon 28 f/1.8 for a close approximation to a 50mm on a full frame for the "natural eye".

either than 30mm sigma or the 50mm canon 1.4 is a necessary addition for my trip out to LA this year. I want something that performs a bit better in low light... On that note I think I might also invest in a flash. I have a few old flashes that worked with my olympus camera but they dont seem to fire on this new 7d. Kinda annoyed by that. Any flash, no matter how old, is better than the direct light from a built in flash.

scratch that I got one of them working

boo...you need a new flash. 7d will trigger speedlites off camera out of the box. It's the one thing I am truly jealous of on that beast.

I've been shooting with the Canon 50mm f/1.4 for years in my theatre photography. Its great in low light situations but just be very aware of that depth of field when shooting wide open!

pol wrote:
DF7 wrote:

Anyone know any good photography forums to lurk on? I've been lurking on Fred Miranda for the past year or so, but I'm getting sick of the snobby attitude they have. When every answer to the question "What should I get to take a picture of my kids?" is "Oh, you'll need a 70-200 f/2.8 IS for that, or maybe a 400L*" you know they are elitist.

*Really expensive lenses.

I'm actually really diggin the photography sub-reddits to be honest. Lots of real people trying to make the best out of what hey have, and while there is the occasional push for gear its much less pronounced. Reddit being what it is, the answer is much more likely to be "You're doing it wrong" rather than "What do you expect, you're shooting a kit lens."

Yeah, /r/photography is one of the only places I've seen decent discussion of photography lately.

DF7 - Been stalking your photo blog - and wanted to share a comment on that HDR image of the underpass.

DF7's photo comment wrote:

I took this yesterday when I was riding around exploring Boulder’s many bike trails. It is an HDR, which I’m trying to get better at. I hate how my HDR process seems to render reflections off water as weird purple blown out blobs, but I’m not sure how to get around that yet.

That may be the incremental movements of the water between shots. One shot is white, the other very dark. I got a similar effect with tree branches and leaves moving when I thought there wasn't much breeze or anything. Everything turned a darker blue than the sky where the leaves were in one shot, but not the other.

In other words, I don't think you can really avoid it with moving water, but if you find a way, I'd like to know it.

mrtomaytohead wrote:

DF7 - Been stalking your photo blog - and wanted to share a comment on that HDR image of the underpass.

DF7's photo comment wrote:

I took this yesterday when I was riding around exploring Boulder’s many bike trails. It is an HDR, which I’m trying to get better at. I hate how my HDR process seems to render reflections off water as weird purple blown out blobs, but I’m not sure how to get around that yet.

That may be the incremental movements of the water between shots. One shot is white, the other very dark. I got a similar effect with tree branches and leaves moving when I thought there wasn't much breeze or anything. Everything turned a darker blue than the sky where the leaves were in one shot, but not the other.

In other words, I don't think you can really avoid it with moving water, but if you find a way, I'd like to know it.

a) Thanks for stalking me, I appreciate the audience.

b) I think you are right, my HDR program seems to have trouble with that kind of thing. I think "anti ghosting" is the thing that gets rid of it, but I'm not sure if I can do it with what I have.

What did you think about the rest of it? Did it look too surreal?

What is your flickr account or blog? I'd be happy to follow you in return.

DF7 wrote:
mrtomaytohead wrote:

DF7 - Been stalking your photo blog - and wanted to share a comment on that HDR image of the underpass.

DF7's photo comment wrote:

I took this yesterday when I was riding around exploring Boulder’s many bike trails. It is an HDR, which I’m trying to get better at. I hate how my HDR process seems to render reflections off water as weird purple blown out blobs, but I’m not sure how to get around that yet.

That may be the incremental movements of the water between shots. One shot is white, the other very dark. I got a similar effect with tree branches and leaves moving when I thought there wasn't much breeze or anything. Everything turned a darker blue than the sky where the leaves were in one shot, but not the other.

In other words, I don't think you can really avoid it with moving water, but if you find a way, I'd like to know it.

a) Thanks for stalking me, I appreciate the audience.

b) I think you are right, my HDR program seems to have trouble with that kind of thing. I think "anti ghosting" is the thing that gets rid of it, but I'm not sure if I can do it with what I have.

What did you think about the rest of it? Did it look too surreal?

What is your flickr account or blog? I'd be happy to follow you in return.

Following you via flicker RSS feed. I don't have anything going though. Just some occasional / rare updates on picasa and not always anything too great. The tree I was talking about was in a shot of a building we had just finished up at work, but not really very impressive as it's a state owned manufacturing facility and a renovation at that. I only used HDR because so I could get some definition on the covered doors and other darker elements while still maintaining definition in the clouds and color in the sky. I'll be sure to be more mindfull of items like water and tree lims in the future.

I like how the HDR makes the concrete look almost 'soft', but the edges stay defined. I do love seeing images of what would typically be passed over as mundane, but made special by taking the time for a photo. Like in this one it's the meeting of a number of man made paths and elements all around and hiding this stream, and crashing down right into the line of where the water falls.

I started my studio back up, so if anyone wants to check it out feel free, only have a facebook page right now since I'm not doing this full time yet, http://www.focusure.com

So has anyone here been able to check out a Fuji x100 in person? I am currently in love with that camera. I'm thinking that if I ever do a gap year world travel kind of thing, I would sell my Canon kit and pick up one of those.

After starting to share pictures in the free version of Flickr I'm nearing the 200 image cut off. The cost isn't a significant consider but before I hand them my money, does anyone have thoughts on alternatives to Flickr? (500px is one I've heard of for example).

Goals:
- be able to lock down some of the pictures to just share with family and close friends
- viewable from mobile / ipad as well as from a desktop browser

Photobucket doesn't have limits.

Tagging this thread. I'm still a huge noob, but I'm learning. Don't have anything to really show off yet.

Also tagged. When I have money to burn, I'd love to get a proper camera.

Rahmen wrote:

After starting to share pictures in the free version of Flickr I'm nearing the 200 image cut off. The cost isn't a significant consider but before I hand them my money, does anyone have thoughts on alternatives to Flickr? (500px is one I've heard of for example).

Goals:
- be able to lock down some of the pictures to just share with family and close friends
- viewable from mobile / ipad as well as from a desktop browser

I use Picasa, which shares my Google account space (which I upgraded to 21 gigs for $5/year).
I haven't really tested the security, but it allows me to set an album as private, shared with specific Google accounts, accessible with link, and public.
Currently I have around 400 full resolution photos uploaded, using about 2 gigs of my 21.
Here is the prebuilt copy/paste link for my general sharing album:
SharingMeansCaring

EDIT: Sidebenefit from using a Google service is that Android phones linked to your Google account will automatically sync your online albums.

EDIT: I believe it will also let me hotlink and resize on the fly. This is a full resolution picture linked to an 800px version by changing a dropdown.
IMAGE(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-qmY_EHw9Bcg/ThcbhwTaqrI/AAAAAAAADRg/mAqp4e3BfA0/s800/DSC02522.JPG)

EDIT3: Now I'm just playing. Same size original, resized to medium settings.
IMAGE(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-p-biBeNX54s/Thcl9oVg6eI/AAAAAAAADSA/b0HYJvcU34Q/s640/DSC00701.JPG)

EDIT4: Thumbnail linking to the full picture.
IMAGE(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Gje5g380lgs/ThcnRKYQjLI/AAAAAAAADSQ/lsid6AaSJ0I/s144/IMG_5990.JPG)

Sorry, but I hadn't really used that feature before and this seems much slicker than my old approach. Thanks for indulging me.

Pirate Bob's Tip of the Day

Circular Polarizers FTW

IMAGE(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d8/CircularPolarizer.jpg/500px-CircularPolarizer.jpg)
Without/With

Circular polarizers work by filtering out non-aligned light waves. Or something along those lines, someone with far better technical expertise could explain it better. The 'how' isn't terribly important - today we're looking at just the effect.

Polarizers can help reduce reflections off non-metallic surfaces - glass, water, soil, even light scattered in the air.

With water, you can reduce the reflection to better see what's below.
IMAGE(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-emQV2x_Xd0M/S6SIq64MjDI/AAAAAAAAIY0/TNv6CDJOijk/s640/DSC_7622.jpg)
Or, let the color of the water come through better.
IMAGE(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-Tnz9bXIeeHY/Tgv4C41jfeI/AAAAAAAAMFI/VzeiLf3fYnI/s800/DSC_4616.JPG)

When aimed at the sky, you can get some really deep, almost black, blues.
IMAGE(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-DTGERClgqz8/S2X4AWFPsZI/AAAAAAAAD2Q/g3w2qGQhaxc/s640/DSC_0748.JPG)

Reducing the reflections helps to bring out the colors of the material. Plants, clay tiles and bricks and paint usually do pretty well. Reflections off plant leaves can be greatly reduced to let the green come through:
IMAGE(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-KCczyLxw4vM/Tb2nQRvvx-I/AAAAAAAAL4c/EybSonqqDpw/s640/DSC_4265.JPG)

In some situations they can enhance reflections slightly for some interesting effects.
IMAGE(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-llVLH8g_HtM/S2XArJEcf8I/AAAAAAAADFs/wsHFO_Sn0Uk/s640/DSC_1087.jpg)

I don't have an obvious example with it removing scattering in the air, but they can help clear up haze from humidity a bit.

Polarizers are relatively cheap, $50-$90 depending on the size. Mine pretty much never leaves my lens.

Tips on using circular polarizers

  • Circular polarizers work best when 90 degrees to the sun (or other light source). When facing the sun, you'll get very little effect. With your back to the sun, you'll get some effect, but not as strong.
  • Most of them come with a mark on the edge indicating their angle of filtering. If this mark is pointing towards the sun, that will give the maximum effect
  • Most polarizers (and other filters too) will cause slight vignetting. I usually like the effect, others don't.

Here's a noob question for you:

What the heck do you use a lens hood for?

NSMike wrote:

Here's a noob question for you:

What the heck do you use a lens hood for?

If the light source in your image is pointed towards your lens you'll get what's called lens flare. They are spots of light in your image, caused by the light leaking into the lens and bouncing off the edge of some of the glass inside.

A lens hood helps prevent this, at least from light coming into the lens from an angle. If you're pointing the lens right at the sun, you're pretty much asking for lens flare.

Example of unintentional lens flare here, down the middle of the waterfall. I did have a lens hood on, but the light was direct enough that it didn't help.

IMAGE(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6018/5907164150_71a82a6657_z.jpg)

Example of lens flare that I was actually looking for here. The beams of light coming off of the sun are, I'm fairly certain, technically lens flare.

IMAGE(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-OTRT7qanPQs/TMNsPdGyY4I/AAAAAAAACFo/lvc24UpV-Go/s640/IMG_8866.jpg)

In addition a lens hood increases contrast by eliminating, or at least reducing, off-axis light that just illuminates the interior of your lens but isn't part of the actual image. This is especially important if you're taking images where other photographers are using flashes.

It also protects the lens from scratching if you drop it on the ground. Or so I've read. I haven't tested the theory yet.

Oh, on that front I always run a sacrificial UV filter. They're cheap and protect your front element from dust and fingerprints. Especially handy for child photography.

I think that either a lens hood OR a uv filter is essential. Both will protect the actual lens against dropping. A UV filter will also keep dust and smudges off the actual lens, but a hood won't add another layer of (potentially low quality) glass between the sensor and the subject.

I've heard that argument but in my testing there is absolutely no difference with the UV filter in place. I do pay a couple dollars more for a name brand filter though. But running a UV filter with no hood is probably a really bad idea as then you've got flat glass right on the end of the lens pretty much guaranteeing glare issues.