Any photographers in the house?

Paleocon wrote:
LilCodger wrote:

Low end dSLR's used up close and personal are the worst of both worlds. The autofocus has trouble finding anything to work with. Between the viewfinder and the small LCD, most of my attempts at manual focus end up deleted as blurry messes.

Here is your answer:

IMAGE(http://www.ne.jp/asahi/japan/manual-camera/f-1_01.jpg)

I have the canon AE-1, but the seals are all corroded and there is some other stuff I need to fix on it. I really wish this camera was a bit newer.

I was fiddling around with some color correction in photoshop recently while trying to come to terms with the faded old photograph style that is all the rage these days and came out with this:

IMAGE(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4039/4334864648_2efb25bdb8.jpg)

There are still a few things I am not satisfied with in the shadow highlights, but I assume some more tweaking will bring it out eventually.

Never mind, I think I found what was missing. It needed some magenta

Paleocon wrote:

Anyone here have any experience purchasing from either Beach Camera or Tri State?

Since those are not B&H (or amazon) they are by definition criminals.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/45923300@N02/show/with/4336108768/

Here are some of the photos I took today. I still have a lot more but I haven't put them up yet. I went around the wharf with my meet up group. I then had lunch at Tommy's with my mom and dad and we went to the park.

I really like the photo of the couple walking.

I too went to a meet up, but this one hosted by Flickr. On South Beach. On Super Bowl weekend. Needless to say, it was a mad house. Still tame compared to the Hip Hop festival.

http://ihardlyknowher.com/therealedw...

Edwin wrote:

I really like the photo of the couple walking.

I too went to a meet up, but this one hosted by Flickr. On South Beach. On Super Bowl weekend. Needless to say, it was a mad house. Still tame compared to the Hip Hop festival.

http://ihardlyknowher.com/therealedw...

Some very nice work in there Edwin! These were my favourites - one, two, three

A few comments/suggestions (pls. ignore if you think I'm nuts)

For one, it seems like there's a little bit of highlight clipping. One thing I've realized with a 50mm prime is that when it's wide open, it lets in a lot of light - far more than a kit or slow telephoto. I'm not sure if you could have dropped down to 200 ISO, but it might be worth trying to see if you can do some highlight recovery in post.

For two, no comments - it's an awesome shot. I love the gritty feel of it

For three, would you consider cropping the lower part with the concrete and bush(?). It distracts from an otherwise wonderful abstract shot - just lines & colours to focus on.

General comment about ihardlyknowher - since it's using the API, any "views" on that site don't count in Flickr. Just thought I should point that out.

Since all I've been doing here is commenting on other peoples' photos, here are two of my own that I took on a recent trip to India:

Intro: I was there for a wedding and was shooting with a Nikon D40, a borrowed Nikon 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 lens and an SB-800. Based on my gear, I was appointed the "semi-official personal photographer"

This photo was taken during the Mehendi ceremony. B&W Conversion done inside Lightroom. Far & away, my favourite from the entire set of 500 odd shots I took.

IMAGE(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2785/4337121488_a7224af194.jpg)
Click for bigger

This photo isn't all that great - there's a distracting blur of movement behind the person's head and the photo is slightly off-kilter. Still I like it for the typical scene in an Indian wedding that it captures. Also, thank god for big zooms - I was able to shoot this standing far enough not to be noticed, otherwise it would be instant "sit up straight and smile for the camera"
IMAGE(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2757/4336377981_3c89767484.jpg)

I must say avggeek I love that b&w shot! I hate it when people assume that simple desaturation is enough to get black and white. As far as the ihardlyknowher api, I realized it doesnt count as traffic, but I am ok with this as the stuff I usually put through it is ment as a portfolio and I want it sectioned off from the rest of my stuff when people (either a client or a potential employer) are browsing it.

avggeek wrote:

For one, it seems like there's a little bit of highlight clipping. One thing I've realized with a 50mm prime is that when it's wide open, it lets in a lot of light - far more than a kit or slow telephoto. I'm not sure if you could have dropped down to 200 ISO, but it might be worth trying to see if you can do some highlight recovery in post.

While I've learned a lot about photography in the small amount of time I've been shooting, I haven't learned anything about post-processing besides the auto button in Lightroom or the I'm Feeling Lucky button in Picasa. I really hate blurry photos so last night I was trying to shoot in shutter priority mode of 25 - 30. Sadly a lot of photos had to be thrown out because I was still getting blurry shots. I refused to use the flash because I really want my photos to be as I see them, with the light that is already there. I also have no idea what you mean by highlight clipping or how to recover it in post.

The second shot really reminds me of Fallout for some reason. I went ahead and cropped the third. I didn't notice the concrete and tree branch there.

I too like your black and white shot there.

Edwin wrote:

I really hate blurry photos so last night I was trying to shoot in shutter priority mode of 25 - 30.

The general rule of thumb for stop-action shots (not blurry) is to use 1/x second shutter speed, where x=the focal length of your lens. Since you were shooting with your 50mm, probably should've kicked it up a bit faster to the 1/50-1/100 range. Go ahead, your f/1.8 should be able to accommodate that.

I did not know that. I'll have to try it out soon. Thanks!

Blotto The Clown wrote:

I must say avggeek I love that b&w shot! I hate it when people assume that simple desaturation is enough to get black and white. As far as the ihardlyknowher api, I realized it doesnt count as traffic, but I am ok with this as the stuff I usually put through it is ment as a portfolio and I want it sectioned off from the rest of my stuff when people (either a client or a potential employer) are browsing it.

Glad you like the shot! Re: B&W Conversion - seconded on the "straight desaturation sucks". I remember reading in Scott Kelby's book that even applying a grayscale filter in PS works better than just desaturating a shot (and it's true too!). Plus, B&W conversions in LR are just so great - especially with the individual colour sliders.

Edwin wrote:

While I've learned a lot about photography in the small amount of time I've been shooting, I haven't learned anything about post-processing besides the auto button in Lightroom or the I'm Feeling Lucky button in Picasa. I really hate blurry photos so last night I was trying to shoot in shutter priority mode of 25 - 30. Sadly a lot of photos had to be thrown out because I was still getting blurry shots. I refused to use the flash because I really want my photos to be as I see them, with the light that is already there. I also have no idea what you mean by highlight clipping or how to recover it in post.

I have to tell you that if you are using only the Auto button in LR, you're Doing It Wrong™

The Develop Presets in LR are just amazing and there are a number of great sites out there for downloading presets (Just for example, the B&W shot I posted above was done using a Develop Preset). Here are a few good sites for Presets - Adobe LR Exchange, Inside Lightroom and OnOne (I highly recommend OnOne's presets)

Re: flash - yeah I'm with you on the body-mounted flashes. I've had some success with using Flash EV Compensation and/or Slow Sync modes but after using the SB-800 recently I have to say the external flash makes a huge difference. All the benefits of an flash and (used the right way) some great directional lighting.

Edwin wrote:

I went ahead and cropped the third. I didn't notice the concrete and tree branch there.

Looking at the timestamp on your post, I figure you posted the revised version about 5 hours ago and almost immediately thereafter there's a comment from what appears to an attractive young lady gushing about the shot. So yeah, I'm gonna call that one "I told ya so"

I had with me a nice Canon flash that goes in the hot shoe with one of the plastic diffuser caps but I just refuse to use it. I'm stubborn like that.

I think it's because my absolute favorite photography, Miami Fever, doesn't use a flash or post processing. I figure if he can do it, I can eventually figure out how too.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fodder
http://www.miami-fever.com/
http://www.republicaunica.com/

Edwin wrote:

I had with me a nice Canon flash that goes in the hot shoe with one of the plastic diffuser caps but I just refuse to use it. I'm stubborn like that.

Heh well to each his own. Give it a try once though, especially if you know you are going to be shooting indoors with not very good lighting.

Edit: To be clear, I'm referring to using the external flash with the flash-head pointed anywhere but directly at the subject. I used some of the tips from this website and had some pretty great results. For example (apologies in advance for the small sizes):

IMAGE(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_GzMGPIgXATI/S20CDSgB8oI/AAAAAAAABbI/5So8n03wJ5Y/s400/Mehendi_20100119_0005.jpg)
Shot with the flash head pointing directly at the ceiling (about 5-6 ft above my head) in TTL-BL Mode and the subject sitting well below my eye-level.

IMAGE(http://lh4.ggpht.com/_GzMGPIgXATI/S20CzG9OgQI/AAAAAAAABfk/H63k2EuzIcY/s400/Muhurtham_20100121_0010.jpg)
Taken in the early morning inside a hall with overhead incandescent lighting. Again, flash-head pointing at the ceiling (about 10-12 ft above)

As you can see in both cases, no "flash-shine" and in case of shot #1, I've managed to preserve some of the background detail..

Edwin wrote:

I think it's because my absolute favorite photography, Miami Fever, doesn't use a flash or post processing. I figure if he can do it, I can eventually figure out how too.

That is some pretty awesome stuff though not entirely SFW (just thought I should mention that..)

It would be awesome to shoot like him without any aids, but until we get there we can use all the help we can get

Re: no post-processing in use - are you sure about that? Given that he seems to shoot mostly street and/or available light, I'm guessing he has to be atleast using things like WB, crop and levels/curves - of course that can qualify as no post-processing in some schools of thought (and that's what I feel as well) but IMO it's not 100% "out of the camera" shots.

In a 2007 interview the only thing he says he sometimes does is contrast. I'm sure he does use something but I'd like to try to be as minimal as possible.

You know what I like about that guy? He picked a subject matter he enjoyed in an interesting environment. There's a lot to be said for focusing on what you like and capturing it for other people to see. And just getting out of the house and into an environment that interests other people.

In a similar vein, I liked flickr's idea of showing user photos from snowpocalypse.

For each of my last two vacations I debated picking up a longer lens for my Canon EOS Digital Xsi. Something that would let me reach out a bit further than the 35-70mm lens I'd converted over from my original film SLR kit, primarily for some wildlife shooting I hoped to do. But each time I passed on the purchase, figuring I could zoom with my feet if need be.

Well I found out last night that we'll be going on an Alaskan cruise this summer to celebrate my parents' 50th anniversary. Unless I want to join the Polar Bear club, zooming with my feet is going to be a bit difficult when it comes to getting some good shots of shore.

My research a few years ago led me to one of these three lenses. (I think I may have even had some help from GWJers at the time, but can't find the thread so I'm not sure)

Canon EF 75-300mm
Sigma 70-300mm
Tamron AF 28-300mm

As I head off to refresh my research, does anyone have any recommendations re: these three, or any pointers as to where I should direct my search?

What's your budget?

Funkenpants wrote:

What's your budget?

Anything below $500 is doable without much trouble. Above $500 is possible, but I'd have to do some dancing for the wife.

Teneman wrote:

Anything below $500 is doable without much trouble. Above $500 is possible, but I'd have to do some dancing for the wife.

I've used the Canon and it works well for the price. The reason I ask about price is that stepping up to one of Canon's F/2.8 zooms requires crossing the $1,000-$1,500 price point. That's hardcore hobbyist/pro level gear. Tamron sells a 70-200mm F/2.8 that goes for around $700 at B&H, but that might not have the power you need (and all I know about it is what I saw on the website).

Funkenpants wrote:

Tamron sells a 70-200mm F/2.8 that goes for around $700 at B&H, but that might not have the power you need (and all I know about it is what I saw on the website).

I have a very old and very abused one of these (filter ring is bent after my camera bag tumbled down some stairs, otherwise the all-metal body is nigh indestructible). It's been decent on my Nikon gear. It's very soft at 2.8, and slow on Nikon's screw motor, but I don't use it all that often, so the used price of $350 was about right. Given how expensive the nicer 70-200 2.8's are and how little I actually use a long lens, it's hard to justify the $1200+ price tag.

The 200mm is nice for close sports (think basketball distances), but for wildlife Teneman will want something longer.

Pirate Bob wrote:

The 200mm is nice for close sports (think basketball distances), but for wildlife Teneman will want something longer.

That's true. The reason I suggested it was for the 2.8 aperture for better bokeh. The 70-300mm Canon I used to photograph soccer and football wasn't capable of getting that narrow depth of field that makes the subject pop. If the Tamron lens is very soft at 2.8 I'd say skip it.

Funkenpants wrote:
Pirate Bob wrote:

The 200mm is nice for close sports (think basketball distances), but for wildlife Teneman will want something longer.

That's true. The reason I suggested it was for the 2.8 aperture for better bokeh. The 70-300mm Canon I used to photograph soccer and football wasn't capable of getting that narrow depth of field that makes the subject pop. If the Tamron lens is very soft at 2.8 I'd say skip it.

That's one thing that concerns me about the Canon, it's got a very narrow range (4 to 5.6). Not sure how much that should concern me, but concern me it does.

The Tamron (the linked $500 one, not the more expensive one Funken mentions) covers 3.5 to 6.3. Worth the extra money?

Oh and Funken, the $1,000 to $1,500 range is probably more than I'd go right now. While I used to do some freelance photography that was a long time ago, and even then was mostly portrait work. I'm no pro, and not even really that hardcore a hobbyist anymore.

Teneman wrote:

Oh and Funken, the $1,000 to $1,500 range is probably more than I'd go right now.

It's tough to justify, I know. I've been tempted to buy one because mostly I shoot my son playing sports and his fellow players, but that's a lot of coin to tie up in a lens (even if the lens can be resold). If you need it for one trip, you may be able to rent something locally with insurance.

Edit- Regarding F/Stops, I'd be less in favor of 6.3 versus 5.6, because that's where you're going to be shooting most of the time.

Teneman wrote:

That's one thing that concerns me about the Canon, it's got a very narrow range (4 to 5.6). Not sure how much that should concern me, but concern me it does.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding your concerns correctly (if not, I apologize in advance), but the f/4 to 5.6 range refers to the smallest f-stop across the zoom range (minimum f/4 at 75mm, minimum f/5.6 at 300mm) You'll still be able to stop down all the way to presumably f/22 at any focal length. My guess is the lens will be at its sharpest at around f/11, while sacrificing some depth of field and light allowance.

What you should be most concerned about is whether the f/4 to 5.6 range is large enough aperture for the lighting condition you'd be using it in. If not, you may consider the Tamron which allows you to stop up (is that the correct term?) to f/3.5.

Novocain wrote:
Teneman wrote:

That's one thing that concerns me about the Canon, it's got a very narrow range (4 to 5.6). Not sure how much that should concern me, but concern me it does.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding your concerns correctly (if not, I apologize in advance), but the f/4 to 5.6 range refers to the smallest f-stop across the zoom range (minimum f/4 at 75mm, minimum f/5.6 at 300mm) You'll still be able to stop down all the way to presumably f/22 at any focal length. My guess is the lens will be at its sharpest at around f/11, while sacrificing some depth of field and light allowance.

What you should be most concerned about is whether the f/4 to 5.6 range is large enough aperture for the lighting condition you'd be using it in. If not, you may consider the Tamron which allows you to stop up (is that the correct term?) to f/3.5.

Damn, see, now you can tell it's been a looong time since I've bought a zoom lens. I was looking at it as f/4 to f/5.6 being the entire range of available aperture sizes. Thanks for clarifying that.

Ars technical uses http://www.borrowlenses.com/

Funkenpants wrote:

If you need it for one trip, you may be able to rent something locally with insurance.

Edwin wrote:

Ars technical uses http://www.borrowlenses.com/

You guys keep talking like that and I'll have to hide this thread from the Mrs. I've been wanting a longer reach lens in the kit for some time now. If this trip is enough justification for her, I'm not going to pass up the opportunity!

Of course it helps that this gear will last a long time if taken care of. The majority of the lenses I do have in my kit I bought 20 years ago for my Canon 35mm SLR, they still work beautifully and are one of the main reasons I went Canon again when I switched to digital SLR. Since the EOS bodies are basically the same whether digital or film, the lenses are effectively interchangeable.

Edwin wrote:

Ars technical uses http://www.borrowlenses.com/

Interesting. If you need equipment for a single vacation, that seems like a pretty cost-effective way to get access to the gear. How often do you get to go photographing Alaskan wildlife?

Edwin wrote:

Ars technical uses http://www.borrowlenses.com/

In that vein, a buddy rented from this place to shoot an airshow and was very happy with them.

Depends on how often you think you'll use the lens I suppose.