PF Photography: Tips, Tricks, & Photo Sharing

[Andre]

Nice Dembadon, got the same camera, but maybe if I had to buy one today, I would also have considered the brand new Canon 60D, which is bridging the gap between the 550D and the 7D, all with the same sensor but with different sets of gadgets.

Sure Turbo's 100-400mmL is good glass but budgetting and judging price versus quality, you may also have a look at the 55-250mm IS.

But the most important part of all camera's starts at about one inch behind the camera.

 

[Andre]

Sure, let us know how it goes!

Oh dang, I forgot about that, but she made it all the way and I got a thanks for my support.

 

[turbo]

Sure Turbo's 100-400mmL is good glass but budgetting and judging price versus quality, you may also have a look at the 55-250mm IS.

I wanted to get a long, fast prime, but those are horrendously expensive. The 100-400 covered a lot of the range I wanted without all the $$$$$ and extra lenses. I have to put up with the relatively slow f:ratio, but with digital cameras, that's a lot easier to accommodate than with film.

 

[Andre]

...especially when your DSLR is very good at high iso's like the Canon 550D/7D/60D, but also the Pentax K-x and probably the successors (k-r and K-5) and the Nikon D3S and successors.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Just to completely change the subject...

I've got nothing for this week's contest (snow&ice) since snow season starts in another month or so, but I would appreciate any hints/tips regarding winter photography, for example-

1) how do you deal with thermal issues- does the camera need to equalize when going out, and how do you prevent/minimize condensation when coming back in?

2) How can I set my exposure stop to allow good contrast (for example, the texture of a snow-covered hillside), while still getting a good 'white' tone? Similarly, any ideas for getting a good 'white-on-white' (say a snowdrift)?

3) The overall lighting here is very 'grey'- heavy overcast skies. How can I make any spots of color really pop out?

I'm hoping to get some good macro shots of snowflakes this year- One thing I miss about the South are those ice storms where everything- every leaf, individual pine needles... gets coated in a 1/8" sheath of crystal clear ice- it's as gorgeous to look at as treacherous to drive on.

 

[Borek]

I don't care too much when I go out, but I don't open the bag/remove camera after getting inside till it gets warm.

As for 2&3 - in my experience when there is no light, there is no pictures, no matter how you try. But I am eager to learn something new.

 

[Andre]

1) how do you deal with thermal issues- does the camera need to equalize when going out, and how do you prevent/minimize condensation when coming back in?

Going out is no problem, except that the batteries may die in extreme cold weather. But before that you get to take the most noise free shots you get, thanks to the increased sensitivity of the cooled sensor. Also consider taking out the battery and carry it in a warm pocket, if it takes a while to get to the shooting location in the cold.

Going in is definitely a problem. Best is to store it in something air tight, a heavy duty plastic bag or something before going in.

2) How can I set my exposure stop to allow good contrast (for example, the texture of a snow-covered hillside), while still getting a good 'white' tone? Similarly, any ideas for getting a good 'white-on-white' (say a snowdrift)?

Use a tripod and make multiple shots with different exposures one stop apart, to select the best one at home, or use HDR. Also modern Canon EOS camera's have an enhanced high tone sensitivity setting.

3) The overall lighting here is very 'grey'- heavy overcast skies. How can I make any spots of color really pop out?

Use RAW and play with color saturation and other settings in post processing.

Succes

 

[Andre]

Anyway, after posting the previous I made this picture during a short hike with my point&shoot (Panasonic DMC TZ7).

This is what the original jpg looks like:

and this with some enhancing contrast, and color using Canons DPP (Digital Photo Profesional) software

 

[Andy Resnick]

Andre-

Thanks! I understand what you mean. Was the original shot with in-camera HDR? I like how you can make the distant snowy trees 'pop'.

 

[Andre]

No in camera HDR, I just did exactly what it said, point and shoot to get something like this (in another direction):

Then I loaded the jpg into DPP and played with the colors as follows:

Notice that I also fooled around with the blue and red 'curve tone', adding some red in the (low) foreground and removing some more blue in the background (high)

And this is the result (all pics are reduced to 18%):

 

[Dembadon]

Congrats, Dembadon! Canon has a very nice selection of lenses, and reasonable upgrade-paths. Their best lenses are $$$$, but there are some nice L-series zooms that will cover a lot of territory. I have a 100-400 IS USM and it delivers really crisp contrasty images. I was doing film photography back when zooms started getting popular, and avoided them like the plague. The 100-400 performs almost as well as my old dedicated Olympus and Bronica primes, and performs really well as a macro, too.

Nice Dembadon, got the same camera, but maybe if I had to buy one today, I would also have considered the brand new Canon 60D, which is bridging the gap between the 550D and the 7D, all with the same sensor but with different sets of gadgets.

Sure Turbo's 100-400mmL is good glass but budgetting and judging price versus quality, you may also have a look at the 55-250mm IS.

But the most important part of all camera's starts at about one inch behind the camera.

Is there a significant AF speed difference between a non-USM lens and a lens that uses micro-USM? I've read reviews claiming that the focusing speed difference between the 70-300 IS USM and the 55-250 IS is negligible due to the USM in the 70-300 being "micro-USM" instead of "ring USM," whatever that means.

I'm inclined to save up the extra $300 for the 70-300 if the AF speed is significantly faster.

 

[turbo]

I don't know about the autofocus speed or accuracy, but one factor that should be considered is the difference between the construction of the rear element of the lens types. The 55-250 is an EFS lens and the 70-300 is an EF. If you should decide to get a full-frame DSLR later, the EFS won't work with it because the rear element of the lens would protrude too deeply into the mirror-box and interfere with the operation of the mirror. EF lenses will fit full-frame cameras and 1.6x cameras (smaller sensor, smaller mirror box). You might not be considering a body upgrade in the near term, but if you find that you really like your lens and want to keep it, it would be best to have chosen an EF to avoid compatibility problems if you want to buy another body with a full-frame sensor.

Here's a review. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-s-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-is-lens-review.aspx

 

[Dembadon]

I don't know about the autofocus speed or accuracy, but one factor that should be considered is the difference between the construction of the rear element of the lens types. The 55-250 is an EFS lens and the 70-300 is an EF. If you should decide to get a full-frame DSLR later, the EFS won't work with it because the rear element of the lens would protrude too deeply into the mirror-box and interfere with the operation of the mirror. EF lenses will fit full-frame cameras and 1.6x cameras (smaller sensor, smaller mirror box). You might not be considering a body upgrade in the near term, but if you find that you really like your lens and want to keep it, it would be best to have chosen an EF to avoid compatibility problems if you want to buy another body with a full-frame sensor.

Here's a review. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-s-55-250mm-f-4-5.6-is-lens-review.aspx

Good point. Thank you, Turbo. The link you provided leads to a review of outstanding quality. I'm leaning towards holding off for the 70-300mm IS USM.

 

[turbo]

Good point. Thank you, Turbo. The link you provided leads to a review of outstanding quality. I'm leaning towards holding off for the 70-300mm IS USM.

If you can wait and save the extra money, I think you'll be well-served. I have a Canon 28-135 EF. It's a light-feeling lens with a lot of plastic, but the glass is really good for the price. If Canon should introduce a really attractive full-frame, I'll probably be happy to have that lens and the 100-400. Frankly, i'd keep both 30Ds and put the 100-400 on the full-frame, but then I'd be falling into the 4-body all-prime trap (shooting film with Olympus gear).

I need a full-frame sensor and an aberration-free lens that zooms from 18mm to 500mm. Piece of cake!
(Gotta be fast with a really noise-free sensor, though. And under $5000 )

 

[Andre]

Not a lot of chance for an economical full frame , I would think, Turbo, for the simple reason that the lastest "full frame" the 1D MarkIV is not a real full frame anymore but has a crop factor of 1.3. Moreover you can spend a lot of money on the mini-professional -1.6 cropped- 7D with gadgets similar to the 1D/5D series. So it seems that the trend is to leave the full frame eventually.

About the 55-250 versus 70-300, Dembadon, I went for the latter because of the enthousiast test reports. and I am very picky about image quality, a so called pixel peeper.

However when in an dynamic environment, shooting nieces on galloping horses or toddlers running, I find that the long end -300mm- is great, but sometimes the short end -70mm- is a limitation, especially when you can't go five steps back. Moreover, the USM of the lens is fast enough to keep up with the burst speed of the 550D

 

[Andre]

Anyway I made that same walk again today and shot the little village (Buhl in the Alsace, France) again.

Again the original jpg unaltered:

and after a little creative editing in DPP:

I entered another pic of that hike in the contest, which shows that you should never leave home without your DSLR and 100mm macro lens

 

[Dembadon]

If you can wait and save the extra money, I think you'll be well-served. I have a Canon 28-135 EF. It's a light-feeling lens with a lot of plastic, but the glass is really good for the price. If Canon should introduce a really attractive full-frame, I'll probably be happy to have that lens and the 100-400. Frankly, i'd keep both 30Ds and put the 100-400 on the full-frame, but then I'd be falling into the 4-body all-prime trap (shooting film with Olympus gear).

I need a full-frame sensor and an aberration-free lens that zooms from 18mm to 500mm. Piece of cake!
(Gotta be fast with a really noise-free sensor, though. And under $5000 )

Not a lot of chance for an economical full frame , I would think, Turbo, for the simple reason that the lastest "full frame" the 1D MarkIV is not a real full frame anymore but has a crop factor of 1.3. Moreover you can spend a lot of money on the mini-professional -1.6 cropped- 7D with gadgets similar to the 1D/5D series. So it seems that the trend is to leave the full frame eventually.

About the 55-250 versus 70-300, Dembadon, I went for the latter because of the enthousiast test reports. and I am very picky about image quality, a so called pixel peeper.

However when in an dynamic environment, shooting nieces on galloping horses or toddlers running, I find that the long end -300mm- is great, but sometimes the short end -70mm- is a limitation, especially when you can't go five steps back. Moreover, the USM of the lens is fast enough to keep up with the burst speed of the 550D

Thanks for the advice, guys. I've decided to go with the 70-300 IS USM lens.

I like the term "pixel peeper" and could probably be considered one of them myself, although it might be a bit early to tell. I've also been tinkering with Canon's Digital Photo Professional software, and I'm pretty impressed with its features.

 

[Andy Resnick]

No in camera HDR, I just did exactly what it said, point and shoot to get something like this (in another direction):

Then I loaded the jpg into DPP and played with the colors as follows:


Notice that I also fooled around with the blue and red 'curve tone', adding some red in the (low) foreground and removing some more blue in the background (high)

And this is the result (all pics are reduced to 18%):

Anyway I made that same walk again today and shot the little village (Buhl in the Alsace, France) again.

Again the original jpg unaltered:

and after a little creative editing in DPP:

I entered another pic of that hike in the contest, which shows that you should never leave home without your DSLR and 100mm macro lens

I wasn't ignoring these posts- I was trying the process out on my setup: I have Photoshop Lightroom and ImageJ. ImageJ is perfect for me- free, simple, and intuitive. Lightroom is entirely too much for me to handle- I'm no pro.

The main problem I am having (well, one of them anyway...) is how to get what I see on the monitor to match the output from the printer. It doesn't help that I am colorblind.

I'm having problems with yellow/orange/red- the printer output is completely oversaturated, even when the image looks ok on my monitor. I've tried to adjust the monitor by calibration- I printed out a color test page, took pictures of it, and tried to get the display to look like the printout. That helped, but in the end I just can't trust my eyes.

BTW- your submitted photo is *fantastic*. Did you happen to get a close-up shot of one of those ice 'flakes'?

 

[Andy Resnick]

If you can wait and save the extra money, I think you'll be well-served. I have a Canon 28-135 EF. It's a light-feeling lens with a lot of plastic, but the glass is really good for the price. If Canon should introduce a really attractive full-frame, I'll probably be happy to have that lens and the 100-400. Frankly, i'd keep both 30Ds and put the 100-400 on the full-frame, but then I'd be falling into the 4-body all-prime trap (shooting film with Olympus gear).

I need a full-frame sensor and an aberration-free lens that zooms from 18mm to 500mm. Piece of cake!
(Gotta be fast with a really noise-free sensor, though. And under $5000 )

Personally, I've decided not to use zoom lenses. I'm not happy with the amount of aberration that results from the design constraints. To be sure, there are zooms that are simply amazing- but a good prime lens will beat a zoom lens, every time.

Currently, I have a 24mm f1.8 (Sigma), a 50mm f1.8 (Nikon), and an 85mm f1.4 (Zeiss). The 50mm is from my old Nikon FG that I stick on my Sony with an adapter- and since there is no obvious loss in performance, I'm strongly ogling the 15mm f3.5 Nikkor since Nikon omits the aperture ring on their 14-24mm zoom. Nikon's 300mm f2.0 or 400mm f2.8 lenses look quite enticing, but I have no use for those focal lengths (yet). Also, there's the small matter of the cost...

 

[turbo]

I know what you're experiencing, Andy. Until I bought a Canon 30D a few years ago, I never owned a zoom lens. Years back, I owned about 1/2 dozen Olympus bodies (any given time), and about an equal number of Zuicko primes. That can get expensive. My Bronica bodies/prime lens fixation was even more expensive.

 

[Dembadon]

Even though this isn't a very interesting picture, it's the first one that I've played with using DPP. Since it's winter, everything here is dead, and this was taken on a cloudy day around noon.

Original:

Edited with DPP:

I think I may have gone a bit too far with the color saturation. I'm also making this post to make sure I'm converting, resizing, and uploading pictures correctly.

 

[Borek]

You have to start with something

You could try to take the picture from slightly different angle, to change the background to less noisy. I would try as a background either the white patch of snow or soil without sticks - it doesn't have to help, but it is just always an option to consider. You already have low DoF - that's good for this type of picture.

 

[Andre]

Personally, I've decided not to use zoom lenses. I'm not happy with the amount of aberration that results from the design constraints. To be sure, there are zooms that are simply amazing- but a good prime lens will beat a zoom lens, every time.
..

This sounds like one generation back. The standard work horse for the modern professional photographers is the 70-200mm nowadays (Canon, Nikon) and not a prime. Not sure if there are primes beating their performance.

 

[Andre]

I'm having problems with yellow/orange/red- the printer output is completely oversaturated, even when the image looks ok on my monitor. I've tried to adjust the monitor by calibration- I printed out a color test page, took pictures of it, and tried to get the display to look like the printout. That helped, but in the end I just can't trust my eyes.

BTW- your submitted photo is *fantastic*. Did you happen to get a close-up shot of one of those ice 'flakes'?

Sorry to hear Andy. That's a nasty handicap, maybe it helps if you can find somebody to judge the editting. Maybe you can also learn to interpret the color histograms and work with that.

For the submitted picture, unfortunately I was unable to bring my gear and I had only my point and shoot available. This is a life size crop, showing that you should never leave home without DSLR and macro lens.

 

[Andy Resnick]

This sounds like one generation back. The standard work horse for the modern professional photographers is the 70-200mm nowadays (Canon, Nikon) and not a prime. Not sure if there are primes beating their performance.

Those are nice lenses- but I don't use long focal lengths.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Sorry to hear Andy. That's a nasty handicap, maybe it helps if you can find somebody to judge the editting. Maybe you can also learn to interpret the color histograms and work with that.

For the submitted picture, unfortunately I was unable to bring my gear and I had only my point and shoot available. This is a life size crop, showing that you should never leave home without DSLR and macro lens.

Heh... I'm not sure it's a handicap. After all, I don't get fooled by camouflage either :)

But yes- I *must* work directly with the histograms.

Those ice flakes really astound me- gigantic dendritic crystals. Fantastic.

 

[Dembadon]

You have to start with something

You could try to take the picture from slightly different angle, to change the background to less noisy. I would try as a background either the white patch of snow or soil without sticks - it doesn't have to help, but it is just always an option to consider. You already have low DoF - that's good for this type of picture.

Thanks, Borek. That's a good idea (getting rid of the busy background). I'm going to try and find something more pleasing to the eye for my next shot.

 

[turbo]

The melting in my backyard pond looks similar to an area of the original Mandelbrot set. And there are smaller copies near the back of the pond.

 

[Andre]

Nice Turbo,

Here a girl -also known with a white dress on, training a young Arabian to jump, shot with the Canon EOS 450D in burst mode

Some evaluation of the training session afterwards:

Oh the girl can be hired as a model, I made that portefolio.

 

[drizzle]

Hey turbo, there's a deer in your pic!

Nice pics Andre, how old is the young Arabian? 1.5?

 

[Andre]

Ah, drizzle, I think 2.5 actually, her dad traded it recently for another horse.

 

[turbo]

girl can be hired as a model, I made that portefolio.

Very nice, Andre. At 5'7" with a fairly athletic build, she could get work here modeling for LL Bean, Woolrich, Cabela's, Patagonia, etc. A good friend of mine in college did just that. Average height with a curvy figure wouldn't get her any fashion modeling jobs, but she was a shoo-in for modeling outdoor clothing, etc. It's an area that was called "sports modeling" back then, and I don't know if that has evolved in the past 40 years, but she did a lot of shoots as the catalog companies changed their clothing lines.

Her portfolio was not large, but was well-done, and her scrapbook was very impressive, even by the time I met her at 18. She got lots of work as a teen. She'd cut out the pictures from the catalogs, mount them and label them with captions like "XXX outfitting company, Spring 1968" etc. Pretty good sales pitch if she went on an open call. Just show them the scrap-book, so they know how long she has been working and how often she had been featured in print ads. Smart girl.

 

[turbo]

Hey turbo, there's a deer in your pic!

I wish! He'd be in the freezer right now!

 

[Andre]

I think the pic I submitted for the current photo contest looks very unreal and photoshopped maybe.

But it's definitely natural. It was taken at Montcru this summer. In a clear night quite a lot of fog can accumulate in the valley below. This shot was taken at 8:02 AM:

So eventually when the sun warms up the fog it starts to lift and drift up on the hill side and when those little fog patches pass along the bright sun, you get this extreme effect. The shot in the contest was taken at 8:28am only half an hour later from the tree group on the left.

 

[Andre]

A few more pix taken that same morning during those magical blinded-by-the-light moments:

Also to convince Borek, Marzena and other enthousiast photographers or enjoyers of nature, that Montcru is the place to be for that.

 

[Borek]

I have no doubts it is an interesting place to visit. From what I read lately (in Vanished Kingdoms by Norman Davies) it is also an area with interesting history.

 

[Gokul43201]

I've seen similar effects too, and almost always under somewhat (but not overly) foggy conditions.

Here's one I took in the late fall that shows a similar behavior:

 

[Dembadon]

Nice, Gokul! The chromatic dispersion is my favorite part.

 

[Andre]

Here are a few more from a very wet / foggy / sunny morning on Montcru in August.

Tobias -just as black as Gizmo- checking out the fog below.

Accumulating dew drops on a leaf.

just a few steps away from the first tree.

just above the pond

Very wet dandelion

 

[drizzle]

Gizmooooo :faints:
Really nice. It'll definitely be my phone's background.

Love these pics Andre.

PS, I can't see some of these pics, they appear gray! :(

 

[Andre]

Sorry, drizzly Actually, that's Tobias,

All pix seem fine for me. Maybe you can copy the url and try the pix to open in separate windows or tabs.

 

[Borek]

I can't see some of these pics, they appear gray! :(

That's OK, haven't you read? It was foggy.

 

[The legend]

Really, really, awesome pictures here!

 

[Andre]

Thanks,

I uploaded most of those pix http://rapidshare.com/files/435863500/aaapix.zip in their original uncropped size (5184 x 3456 pixels). It's a big file, but high quality and you could print it on poster size.

So by my guest and get them. I think the downloads are limited, so if it doesn't work, please let me know.

 

[turbo]

Very effective use of fog/dew/sun Pooh! Lovely shots, all.

 

[Andre]

So I saw this photo contest, colorful abstract on another site. So I looked around me in da house and made a couple of piX and I submitted this one:

 

[drizzle]

Cool Andre! Lovely. I'm just trying to guess what could this be part of, an art work?

 

[Andre]

Sort of, drizzle, it's creative embroidery with a sewing machine.

 

[Andy Resnick]

So I saw this photo contest, colorful abstract on another site. So I looked around me in da house and made a couple of piX and I submitted this one:

Like!

I dig how the yellow cuts upward, like a flame... were you 'going' for anything in particular?

 

[turbo]

My wife says "Cool! I want a blouse covered with that!" I asked if she wanted it so that she would fit in at hippie weddings at the South Solon Meeting House, and she said "No. It would only be for dress-up on special occasions."