hey folks.
since i started posting a few of my shots here i've received a lot of emails from you guys who are interested in photography, or who are intrigued by digital photography as a first time camera.
I'm more than happy to answer your questions. Not only do i make a living doing actual photography, i also sell cameras and equipment in the largest retailer within the S.F. bay area.
there's a lot of bad bad info about photography and digital photography in general on the internet. most of it is spread by new folks with no real training in the basic principles of photography.
so before you decide to buy a camera email me with questions, ok? you dont have to buy it from me of course (then again if you dont live in CA you dont have to pay sales tax if you do *wink*) but email me questions before you spend a few hundred dollars on any digital cameras. like any consumer electronic there are winners and duds.
hasta.
P.S. yes, i'm back to play full time
Photography!
Got a couple of questions for ya actually.
With the new baby I'm always trying to capture him doing his thing without waking him up, which means no flash and no bright lights.
I've got a Kodak DX3900 camera, which I purchased because the last Kodak digital camera I had(also my first) was cheap, reliable, and took decent quality pictures. So far I've been pretty happy with the DX3900, and although it pales in comparison to the Canon that you use judging by some of the pictures you post it is also very compact. I haven't gotten around to ordering the lens adapter for it yet so that I can use standard 37mm lenses on it, but I probably will some time so that I can pop a telephoto lens on it.
Most of the time I have the camera set on all of the standard Auto settings for exposure compensation, white balance, sharpness, ISO speed, and shutter speed.
When I took this picture:
http://www.tcmi.com/Jim/Rylan/images/Thumbs%202/Rylan_and_Mom_Sleeping_2_th.JPG
I had the ISO speed set ISO 400, and had the shutter speed set to 8 seconds. The only light in the room was a very small single 40 watt bulb that was directly behind me. As you can see it turned out a tad blurry from the slow shutter speed, and it's a little yellowish.
Any ideas on what other settings I can tweak to get better low-light pictures, or is this about as good as it gets without getting some sort of rest for the camera to eliminate camera movement with the slow shutter speed, and thus eliminate bluriness?
------------------
Ghimok - Sage of The Company
[This message has been edited by Dlur (edited 06-15-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Dlur (edited 06-15-2002).]
With the new baby I'm always trying to capture him doing his thing without waking him up, which means no flash and no bright lights.
I've got a Kodak DX3900 camera, which I purchased because the last Kodak digital camera I had(also my first) was cheap, reliable, and took decent quality pictures. So far I've been pretty happy with the DX3900, and although it pales in comparison to the Canon that you use judging by some of the pictures you post it is also very compact. I haven't gotten around to ordering the lens adapter for it yet so that I can use standard 37mm lenses on it, but I probably will some time so that I can pop a telephoto lens on it.
Most of the time I have the camera set on all of the standard Auto settings for exposure compensation, white balance, sharpness, ISO speed, and shutter speed.
When I took this picture:
http://www.tcmi.com/Jim/Rylan/images/Thumbs%202/Rylan_and_Mom_Sleeping_2_th.JPG
I had the ISO speed set ISO 400, and had the shutter speed set to 8 seconds. The only light in the room was a very small single 40 watt bulb that was directly behind me. As you can see it turned out a tad blurry from the slow shutter speed, and it's a little yellowish.
Any ideas on what other settings I can tweak to get better low-light pictures, or is this about as good as it gets without getting some sort of rest for the camera to eliminate camera movement with the slow shutter speed, and thus eliminate bluriness?
------------------
Ghimok - Sage of The Company
[This message has been edited by Dlur (edited 06-15-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Dlur (edited 06-15-2002).]
you really want to stay away from the higher iso settings on the smaller cameras. they have small sensors, w hich means they have very very small photosites (light collecting sensors...ie. the pixels) and therefore are inherently noisier (grainy)
but sometimes you just have to use the higher iso's to capture candids. we dont carry kodak digital cameras (we carry so many, we just had to say no to a few) but does your camera go above iso 400?
if not, yo'ure only recourse may be a small, lightweight tripod, like the Velbion maxi 343i, about $130, collapses to about 2 feet long and weighs nothing.
you could have snuck that in quickly and got that shot without disturbing anyone
ideally if you have a well lit room, though, you dont need flash for digital cameras. many of them have custom white balance settings, so you can shoot a white (or better a grey) card and set your white balance for the type of bulbs/tubes in the room. generally the presets of digital cameras are not very good, even my high end professional body.
bottom line i think you already answered your question - you need a tripod or c 'major para' self. you never want to try to handhold any shutter speed below 1/60 unless you are very very sure of your technique!
but sometimes you just have to use the higher iso's to capture candids. we dont carry kodak digital cameras (we carry so many, we just had to say no to a few) but does your camera go above iso 400?
if not, yo'ure only recourse may be a small, lightweight tripod, like the Velbion maxi 343i, about $130, collapses to about 2 feet long and weighs nothing.
you could have snuck that in quickly and got that shot without disturbing anyone
ideally if you have a well lit room, though, you dont need flash for digital cameras. many of them have custom white balance settings, so you can shoot a white (or better a grey) card and set your white balance for the type of bulbs/tubes in the room. generally the presets of digital cameras are not very good, even my high end professional body.
bottom line i think you already answered your question - you need a tripod or c 'major para' self. you never want to try to handhold any shutter speed below 1/60 unless you are very very sure of your technique!
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Teyaha:
<B>you really want to stay away from the higher iso settings on the smaller cameras. they have small sensors, w hich means they have very very small photosites (light collecting sensors...ie. the pixels) and therefore are inherently noisier (grainy)
but sometimes you just have to use the higher iso's to capture candids. we dont carry kodak digital cameras (we carry so many, we just had to say no to a few) but does your camera go above iso 400?
if not, yo'ure only recourse may be a small, lightweight tripod, like the Velbion maxi 343i, about $130, collapses to about 2 feet long and weighs nothing.
you could have snuck that in quickly and got that shot without disturbing anyone
ideally if you have a well lit room, though, you dont need flash for digital cameras. many of them have custom white balance settings, so you can shoot a white (or better a grey) card and set your white balance for the type of bulbs/tubes in the room. generally the presets of digital cameras are not very good, even my high end professional body.
bottom line i think you already answered your question - you need a tripod or c 'major para' self. you never want to try to handhold any shutter speed below 1/60 unless you are very very sure of your technique!
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hurm nope, the camera doesn't go above ISO 400. I guess I'll have to play around with the white balance settings some, I've never messed with that setting yet heh. But just looking at it the options are just Auto, Daylight, Tungsten, and Fluorescent, so not much there.
I think I'm about to order some more camera accessories, so maybe I'll at least get a little mono-pod for it as a tripod seems sort of cumbersome for candid shots. I think I'm going to break down and order the 37mm lens adapter also so I can slap a close-up on to get some pictures of him that way also.
All in all the link to the picture I posted above was the best of about 12 pictures I took in the low-light setting. It was pretty fun to just try different things out though. I had goofed with a shutter time of over 18 seconds, which invariably resulted in a totally blurred, and nearly all white picture, but I could still make out some shapes of the targets. It was sort of artistic in a way. I think some time when I have too much time on my hand I'll set the shutter speed like that again and swing the camera around really fast to see what I end up with heh.
------------------
Ghimok - Sage of The Company
<B>you really want to stay away from the higher iso settings on the smaller cameras. they have small sensors, w hich means they have very very small photosites (light collecting sensors...ie. the pixels) and therefore are inherently noisier (grainy)
but sometimes you just have to use the higher iso's to capture candids. we dont carry kodak digital cameras (we carry so many, we just had to say no to a few) but does your camera go above iso 400?
if not, yo'ure only recourse may be a small, lightweight tripod, like the Velbion maxi 343i, about $130, collapses to about 2 feet long and weighs nothing.
you could have snuck that in quickly and got that shot without disturbing anyone
ideally if you have a well lit room, though, you dont need flash for digital cameras. many of them have custom white balance settings, so you can shoot a white (or better a grey) card and set your white balance for the type of bulbs/tubes in the room. generally the presets of digital cameras are not very good, even my high end professional body.
bottom line i think you already answered your question - you need a tripod or c 'major para' self. you never want to try to handhold any shutter speed below 1/60 unless you are very very sure of your technique!
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hurm nope, the camera doesn't go above ISO 400. I guess I'll have to play around with the white balance settings some, I've never messed with that setting yet heh. But just looking at it the options are just Auto, Daylight, Tungsten, and Fluorescent, so not much there.
I think I'm about to order some more camera accessories, so maybe I'll at least get a little mono-pod for it as a tripod seems sort of cumbersome for candid shots. I think I'm going to break down and order the 37mm lens adapter also so I can slap a close-up on to get some pictures of him that way also.
All in all the link to the picture I posted above was the best of about 12 pictures I took in the low-light setting. It was pretty fun to just try different things out though. I had goofed with a shutter time of over 18 seconds, which invariably resulted in a totally blurred, and nearly all white picture, but I could still make out some shapes of the targets. It was sort of artistic in a way. I think some time when I have too much time on my hand I'll set the shutter speed like that again and swing the camera around really fast to see what I end up with heh.
------------------
Ghimok - Sage of The Company
one of the biggest problems with the smaller digicams is that they have slow lenses
the following links are two hand held very low light shots (fisherman's wharf, pier 39)
the shutter speeds were 1/15, but the lens was f/2.8. your lens is about a f/4-f/5.6 which means you would have needed a 1/10 or a full second for exposure.
not much you can do to get around this, except learn to love your tripod.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=672490
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=672482
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=672561
the following links are two hand held very low light shots (fisherman's wharf, pier 39)
the shutter speeds were 1/15, but the lens was f/2.8. your lens is about a f/4-f/5.6 which means you would have needed a 1/10 or a full second for exposure.
not much you can do to get around this, except learn to love your tripod.
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=672490
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=672482
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=672561
-
Guest
My wife wanted a digital camera for fun and also for taking pictures for her sports teams (she is a volleyball and soccer coach). She wanted something with a good zoom on it, so the cameras we ended up focusing on were (on price, there were others, but too expensive) the Minolta Dimage 5 and the Olympus C720. We ended up getting the 720 through a package deal on Ebay. Any experience with these two?
Erevan
------------------
Erevan
------------------
I have a Canon rebel 2000...the action setting works decently outside and can take some crisp pictures, but inside or at night the pictures always come out really blurry. What would you suggest i do to eliminate the blur? I also wanted to know what would be a good zoomlens to get for it, it just doesn't zoom near as much as I want for nature photos.
Also, do you know much about camcorders?
------------------
Kifle "It Slipped I swear!" ButteryFingers
Also, do you know much about camcorders?
------------------
Kifle "It Slipped I swear!" ButteryFingers
my only gripe with olympus, erevan, is the lack of a histogram.
you simply cannot use the lcd display to judge your exposure as lcd's are artifically bright compared to your crt monitors and have a very shallow color gamut.
with a histogram (photoshop: image|histogram) you can see your light, mid and dark values and see if you have blown out highlights or are underexposed. so far only canon, pentax and minolta have embraced this in all of their cameras.
the top digicam right now would be the minolta dimage 7. damned fine camera! however the upcoming Nikon 5700 with a 10x zoom and legendary nikon ED glass will be giving it a run in a few months.
Kifle..
shutter speed man. when indoors you must watch that your shutter speed never drops below 1/60. you simply cannot hand hold slower than 1/60 you will get blur from camera shake.
also i need to know what lens apertures you have. they may be slow, and that makes it hard for a rebel 2k to focus accurately indoors. Another solution would be to buy an accessory flash, like the canon 420EX ($200) or the monster 550EX ($400)
a good sports lens depends entirely on how much you want to spend. photography is probably the only place where you DO get what you pay for. the rebel 2k is not a bad camera, but it has no metal lens mount on the body and because of this you cannot use the nicer heavy lenses - the body will crack. check out the canon EF USM 75-300 IS ($510), the canon EF USM L 100-400 IS ($1400) or the tamron 200-400 ($700).
do NOT buy a teleconverter, no matter what you read. none of the lenses i listed will continue to autofocus when you put a teleconverter on the lens to increase your focal length.
if you guys would like info on what aperture, shutter speeds and the like are and how they work together you can check out www.photo.net or go buy the best book i've ever read in my life - Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson.
you simply cannot use the lcd display to judge your exposure as lcd's are artifically bright compared to your crt monitors and have a very shallow color gamut.
with a histogram (photoshop: image|histogram) you can see your light, mid and dark values and see if you have blown out highlights or are underexposed. so far only canon, pentax and minolta have embraced this in all of their cameras.
the top digicam right now would be the minolta dimage 7. damned fine camera! however the upcoming Nikon 5700 with a 10x zoom and legendary nikon ED glass will be giving it a run in a few months.
Kifle..
shutter speed man. when indoors you must watch that your shutter speed never drops below 1/60. you simply cannot hand hold slower than 1/60 you will get blur from camera shake.
also i need to know what lens apertures you have. they may be slow, and that makes it hard for a rebel 2k to focus accurately indoors. Another solution would be to buy an accessory flash, like the canon 420EX ($200) or the monster 550EX ($400)
a good sports lens depends entirely on how much you want to spend. photography is probably the only place where you DO get what you pay for. the rebel 2k is not a bad camera, but it has no metal lens mount on the body and because of this you cannot use the nicer heavy lenses - the body will crack. check out the canon EF USM 75-300 IS ($510), the canon EF USM L 100-400 IS ($1400) or the tamron 200-400 ($700).
do NOT buy a teleconverter, no matter what you read. none of the lenses i listed will continue to autofocus when you put a teleconverter on the lens to increase your focal length.
if you guys would like info on what aperture, shutter speeds and the like are and how they work together you can check out www.photo.net or go buy the best book i've ever read in my life - Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson.
Oh cool! A photography thread! And by our own resident pro photographer!
I'll second the vote for the Minolta Dimage 7i!
You can read two excellent reviews of it here:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D7I/D7IA.HTM
and
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/dimage7i.html
I just got the Dimage 7i two weeks ago (after getting Teyaha's blessing :) and love it much! I had a fully-automatic point & shoot Fujifilm Finepix 2800Z before and liked digital photography so much I wanted to expand and learn more which led me to getting thhe Dimage 7i prosumer.
While Nokie is totally amaturish and newbie at taking photos, you can see some sample images of the 7i at my online photo gallery thingy: http://billimek.com/gallery/
Also, a really good comprehensive digital camera review and info site with very active forums is http://www.dpreview.com/
Enjoy! :)
p.s. Teyaha if I knew you were a distributor, I would have bought from you! :(
------------------
Nokie 'No you don't!! That belongs to me!' Quickfingers
[This message has been edited by Nokie (edited 06-16-2002).]
I'll second the vote for the Minolta Dimage 7i!
You can read two excellent reviews of it here:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D7I/D7IA.HTM
and
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/dimage7i.html
I just got the Dimage 7i two weeks ago (after getting Teyaha's blessing :) and love it much! I had a fully-automatic point & shoot Fujifilm Finepix 2800Z before and liked digital photography so much I wanted to expand and learn more which led me to getting thhe Dimage 7i prosumer.
While Nokie is totally amaturish and newbie at taking photos, you can see some sample images of the 7i at my online photo gallery thingy: http://billimek.com/gallery/
Also, a really good comprehensive digital camera review and info site with very active forums is http://www.dpreview.com/
Enjoy! :)
p.s. Teyaha if I knew you were a distributor, I would have bought from you! :(
------------------
Nokie 'No you don't!! That belongs to me!' Quickfingers
[This message has been edited by Nokie (edited 06-16-2002).]
dpreview.com has good, very good reviews.
the OPINIONS in the forums are waaaay off though.
it's good that digital photography has brought the medium to more people than at any time since it's inception over 150 years ago, but now there are a lot of opinionated jerks giving very very bad advice on those forums. in fact very few working pro's actually visit the dpreview forums regularly - just too much noise.
www.fredmiranda.com and www.luminous-landscape.com are MUCH better sites. both are informative with many tutorials and many free downloads.
the OPINIONS in the forums are waaaay off though.
it's good that digital photography has brought the medium to more people than at any time since it's inception over 150 years ago, but now there are a lot of opinionated jerks giving very very bad advice on those forums. in fact very few working pro's actually visit the dpreview forums regularly - just too much noise.
www.fredmiranda.com and www.luminous-landscape.com are MUCH better sites. both are informative with many tutorials and many free downloads.
nokie!!
good stuff there, just checked out your site.
looks like you have an eye for nature photography.
my only recommendation is that you keep the file sizes smaller, no more than 600 pixels at their longest dimension.
there are two reasons why: keeps them under 100k (not everyone is on broadband just yet) and makes it much harder for your stuff to be pirated and printed without your approval.
600 pixels longest dimension, 72dpi. if you have photoshop use photoshops 'save for web' feature and make t hem even smaller. folks who know what they're doing only need a file about 300k in size in order to make a 16x20. it's happened to me once already and is why i no longer have a web site
good stuff! i liked this one especially..
http://billimek.com/gallery/chattahoochee_river_06-16-2002/boardwalk_1
getting down low like that added a sense of perspective and drama to the scene. very nice.
good stuff there, just checked out your site.
looks like you have an eye for nature photography.
my only recommendation is that you keep the file sizes smaller, no more than 600 pixels at their longest dimension.
there are two reasons why: keeps them under 100k (not everyone is on broadband just yet) and makes it much harder for your stuff to be pirated and printed without your approval.
600 pixels longest dimension, 72dpi. if you have photoshop use photoshops 'save for web' feature and make t hem even smaller. folks who know what they're doing only need a file about 300k in size in order to make a 16x20. it's happened to me once already and is why i no longer have a web site
good stuff! i liked this one especially..
http://billimek.com/gallery/chattahoochee_river_06-16-2002/boardwalk_1
getting down low like that added a sense of perspective and drama to the scene. very nice.
whoa new fav!
http://billimek.com/gallery/austin_2002/trees_at_night_blurry
yeah it's blurry, but it's so dramatic!
buy a tripod and store it in the car permanently. that's where all of mine live. then you could have run back to the car, got the tripod, setup and had a tack sharp version of this photo.
it's so eery and dreamy. good job!
http://billimek.com/gallery/austin_2002/trees_at_night_blurry
yeah it's blurry, but it's so dramatic!
buy a tripod and store it in the car permanently. that's where all of mine live. then you could have run back to the car, got the tripod, setup and had a tack sharp version of this photo.
it's so eery and dreamy. good job!
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Teyaha:
<B>
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=672490
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=672482
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=672561
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How can I get a print of the second picture...need something rather large that I can frame and mount on a wall...I think the shot is awesome!
Let me know!
<B>
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=672490
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=672482
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=672561
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
How can I get a print of the second picture...need something rather large that I can frame and mount on a wall...I think the shot is awesome!
Let me know!
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Mplor:
<B>Grandpa Torkelson looks a little evil to me. The wife and kid, however, look great. Grats Dlur.
[This message has been edited by Mplor (edited 06-17-2002).]</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Grandpa Torkelson is an old navy man. He's an ornery cuss and failing in health. But he still likes his grandson
------------------
Ghimok - Sage of The Company
<B>Grandpa Torkelson looks a little evil to me. The wife and kid, however, look great. Grats Dlur.
[This message has been edited by Mplor (edited 06-17-2002).]</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Grandpa Torkelson is an old navy man. He's an ornery cuss and failing in health. But he still likes his grandson
------------------
Ghimok - Sage of The Company
-
Silverast Rubicyn
- Sojourner
- Posts: 376
- Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Long Branch, NJ
Those pictures are utterly amazing, was that with that Dimage 7i camera? I myself have a Kodak DC5000 which I just bought a few months ago, my first digital camera! I love taking pictures, and I'm sure this camera has tons of settings I could mess with to make pictures cool or improve the quality, but I know nothing about it. Can you offer any suggestions?
Also, this may be stupid, but what else do the megapixels do other than being able to take bigger pictures? This camera is 2.0 megapixels, which I thought was decent.
I'm really starting to get into photography alot, I just need to get out and take more pictures! Your pictures look great, and Nokies are cool too!
Also, this may be stupid, but what else do the megapixels do other than being able to take bigger pictures? This camera is 2.0 megapixels, which I thought was decent.
I'm really starting to get into photography alot, I just need to get out and take more pictures! Your pictures look great, and Nokies are cool too!
OH! one more question...I was wondering how it would be possible to take a picture of the rain! Maybe just a single droplet, but i would really love to take some pictures of the rain in a nearby state park and have the droplets actualy be visable rather than a blur or not there at all.
oh and my lens is uhh...(i think this is what you want, its what is written on the lens casing) EF 28-80mm 1:3.5-5.6 II and across from that it also says 58mm...
------------------
Kifle "It Slipped I swear!" ButteryFingers
oh and my lens is uhh...(i think this is what you want, its what is written on the lens casing) EF 28-80mm 1:3.5-5.6 II and across from that it also says 58mm...
------------------
Kifle "It Slipped I swear!" ButteryFingers
Silverast...
the camera i use is the Canon EOS D60. it's a professional machine and is the highest resolution camera on the market today. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneosd60
megapixels aren't everything,but they help. a 6mp camera replaces 35mm film in terms of resolution. however one thing that's very important is the physical size of the charged coupled device, the CCD.
when you attempt to cram a lot of photosites (light gathering elements on a CCD, you can call them the pixels too) onto a small area you will increase your noise levels, which looks a bit like grain. this is why i actually recommend to most people who want to buy a small camera to get no more than 3mp for the pocket sizes. my personal favorite is the canon powershot s30, but the minolta dimage x is pretty slick too.
a 2.0 mp camera is good for 5x7 prints, a 3.3mp is good for 8x10.
if you are sastified with web work and prints no bigger than 5x7 your camera should be fine, but it may also be missing a lot of important features like a histogram display that is on most all of the newer models.
Kifle:
buy a new lens as soon as you can afford one. that lens is the nearly all plastic piece of garbage that comes with the camera. f/3.5-f/5.6 is slow. apertures are fractions, replace the f with a 1. the bigger the bottom number the less light is passing through the lens.
the 58 is the filter size needed for the lens.
oh yeah to do cool rain effects?
place a few pretty, potted folwers on your lawn, turn on the sprinklers. get a safe distance, zoom in, choose a high shutter speed and shoot. voila! instant rain on flowers
the camera i use is the Canon EOS D60. it's a professional machine and is the highest resolution camera on the market today. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneosd60
megapixels aren't everything,but they help. a 6mp camera replaces 35mm film in terms of resolution. however one thing that's very important is the physical size of the charged coupled device, the CCD.
when you attempt to cram a lot of photosites (light gathering elements on a CCD, you can call them the pixels too) onto a small area you will increase your noise levels, which looks a bit like grain. this is why i actually recommend to most people who want to buy a small camera to get no more than 3mp for the pocket sizes. my personal favorite is the canon powershot s30, but the minolta dimage x is pretty slick too.
a 2.0 mp camera is good for 5x7 prints, a 3.3mp is good for 8x10.
if you are sastified with web work and prints no bigger than 5x7 your camera should be fine, but it may also be missing a lot of important features like a histogram display that is on most all of the newer models.
Kifle:
buy a new lens as soon as you can afford one. that lens is the nearly all plastic piece of garbage that comes with the camera. f/3.5-f/5.6 is slow. apertures are fractions, replace the f with a 1. the bigger the bottom number the less light is passing through the lens.
the 58 is the filter size needed for the lens.
oh yeah to do cool rain effects?
place a few pretty, potted folwers on your lawn, turn on the sprinklers. get a safe distance, zoom in, choose a high shutter speed and shoot. voila! instant rain on flowers
I think this is a DOF question regarding portraits.
What sort of adjustments would you need to do in order to take a porttrait of a subject that you want in focus with both the background and the foreground to be out of focus? I know there is a relatively simple way to do it with a portrait in focus and the background only out of focus, but imagine ify ou will a scene in which there is an object in frong of the subject like a car and you don't want both the car and the subject standing behind the car to both be in focus?
------------------
Nokie 'No you don't!! That belongs to me!' Quickfingers
What sort of adjustments would you need to do in order to take a porttrait of a subject that you want in focus with both the background and the foreground to be out of focus? I know there is a relatively simple way to do it with a portrait in focus and the background only out of focus, but imagine ify ou will a scene in which there is an object in frong of the subject like a car and you don't want both the car and the subject standing behind the car to both be in focus?
------------------
Nokie 'No you don't!! That belongs to me!' Quickfingers
Depth of Field (DOF), or the area that is in focus in front of and behind the exact point you are focused on, it based on a few things.
1) focal length of lens involved
2) distance to subject
3) subject distance to background
4) aperture
5) media size
the longer the focal length of your lens, the shallower your deppth of field (less in focus). the shorter your lens focal length the more depth of field you have at any given aperture.
regardless of lens if you are very close to your subject you will lose a lot of depth of field. this is why macro shooters use small apertures, tripods, and a lot of patience.
if your subject is very very far from the background it will be out of focus if you have a 100mm or longer lens. however the shape and how distinguishable the background is depends on both lens focal length and aperture in use.
the bigger aperture (f/1.4, f/1.8, f/2.0, f/2.8) the shallower your depth of field will be to. combine that with long focal length and you have the parrot shot i posted above.
HOWEVER>..
small digital cameras advertise "28-200mm equivalent" lenses. they are equivalent, but not true focal lenghts. if you look at the front of the lens it may say '7-56mm lens'.
we see at approximately 50mm field of view on 35mm film. anything below 50mm is wide angle and will have the greatest depth of field (more in focus). anything higher will have less depth of field (less in focus, isolate your subject)
since digicams use sensors that are only a fraction of the size of 35mm film, they have to use wide angle lenses a lot and you sacrifice the isolation effect you'd get from long lenses.
this is a lot of info.
check out http://www.photo.net/making-photographs/lens for a LOT more info
1) focal length of lens involved
2) distance to subject
3) subject distance to background
4) aperture
5) media size
the longer the focal length of your lens, the shallower your deppth of field (less in focus). the shorter your lens focal length the more depth of field you have at any given aperture.
regardless of lens if you are very close to your subject you will lose a lot of depth of field. this is why macro shooters use small apertures, tripods, and a lot of patience.
if your subject is very very far from the background it will be out of focus if you have a 100mm or longer lens. however the shape and how distinguishable the background is depends on both lens focal length and aperture in use.
the bigger aperture (f/1.4, f/1.8, f/2.0, f/2.8) the shallower your depth of field will be to. combine that with long focal length and you have the parrot shot i posted above.
HOWEVER>..
small digital cameras advertise "28-200mm equivalent" lenses. they are equivalent, but not true focal lenghts. if you look at the front of the lens it may say '7-56mm lens'.
we see at approximately 50mm field of view on 35mm film. anything below 50mm is wide angle and will have the greatest depth of field (more in focus). anything higher will have less depth of field (less in focus, isolate your subject)
since digicams use sensors that are only a fraction of the size of 35mm film, they have to use wide angle lenses a lot and you sacrifice the isolation effect you'd get from long lenses.
this is a lot of info.
check out http://www.photo.net/making-photographs/lens for a LOT more info
kifle..
in photography you DO get what you pay for. so establish your budget NOW.
a good short lens would be the Canon EF 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 USM. around $220. that's a replacement for the P.O.S. you have now.
for longer lenses i'd recommend the Canon EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM. about $500 and image stabilized (basically camcorder steady shot for a lens. if you dont plan to use a tripod you MUST have IS for handholding a lens of this much magnification).
if you get really serious about your photog, buy a real camera (elan 7 at the least) and a few of canon's L lenses. pricey, but very much worth it.
in photography you DO get what you pay for. so establish your budget NOW.
a good short lens would be the Canon EF 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 USM. around $220. that's a replacement for the P.O.S. you have now.
for longer lenses i'd recommend the Canon EF 75-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM. about $500 and image stabilized (basically camcorder steady shot for a lens. if you dont plan to use a tripod you MUST have IS for handholding a lens of this much magnification).
if you get really serious about your photog, buy a real camera (elan 7 at the least) and a few of canon's L lenses. pricey, but very much worth it.
there's a few questions you need to answer first zoldren
1) digital or
2) film
mainly. also do you want a zoom or is a high quality lens more important. need a lot of features?
my personal favorite all around camera in the film world is the Pentax IQZoom 120sw. has a 28-120 lens and is small. about $280
my personal fav all around digital camera is the Canon Powershot G2. think it's about $900.
you can get some basic info on them at www.bhphotovideo.com and search on them.
1) digital or
2) film
mainly. also do you want a zoom or is a high quality lens more important. need a lot of features?
my personal favorite all around camera in the film world is the Pentax IQZoom 120sw. has a 28-120 lens and is small. about $280
my personal fav all around digital camera is the Canon Powershot G2. think it's about $900.
you can get some basic info on them at www.bhphotovideo.com and search on them.
In case anyone is interested, here is another photo album from the independence-day weekend when I was out in California:
http://billimek.com/gallery/san_diego-july-2002
All of the photos were taken with the Minolta Dimage 7i with a B&H 49mm thin multicoated circular polarizer as all the photos I took were outdoors and sunny. Although even with a thin filter, there is still some visible vignetting at wide-angle from some of the laguna photos.
A great example of the polarization filter in action can be seen in two of the picture from the 'boating' section depicitng the underwater plants. Even though the polarizer filter was on the lens, turning it 'off' by 90 degrees made the parts of the plants underwater nearly dissapear. And of course the deep blue skies from some of the laguna pictueres illustrates the polartization effect as well.
The whole time there was a bad marine layer which made the coastal areas overcast and hazy which would have yielded some great shots from the boat, but alas they didn't come out too good.
One of the cool things about this particular camera is a 'UHS' (ulta-high speed) drive mode which allows you to capture 1.5 megapixel images at 7 frame per second, and I was very lucky to capture the dramatic effect of a .50 cal desert eagle firing into a bunch of water jugs because I hit the shutter a split second before my brother fired, so we got to see it from the beginning. I wasn't so lucky trying the same thing with the .45 hangun or the rifle, so didn't post those.
There was post-processing done to about 60% of them such that I applied the 'auto-contrast' adjustment from photoshop. No other post-processing was done.
Enjoy!
------------------
Nokie 'No you don't!! That belongs to me!' Quickfingers
http://billimek.com/gallery/san_diego-july-2002
All of the photos were taken with the Minolta Dimage 7i with a B&H 49mm thin multicoated circular polarizer as all the photos I took were outdoors and sunny. Although even with a thin filter, there is still some visible vignetting at wide-angle from some of the laguna photos.
A great example of the polarization filter in action can be seen in two of the picture from the 'boating' section depicitng the underwater plants. Even though the polarizer filter was on the lens, turning it 'off' by 90 degrees made the parts of the plants underwater nearly dissapear. And of course the deep blue skies from some of the laguna pictueres illustrates the polartization effect as well.
The whole time there was a bad marine layer which made the coastal areas overcast and hazy which would have yielded some great shots from the boat, but alas they didn't come out too good.
One of the cool things about this particular camera is a 'UHS' (ulta-high speed) drive mode which allows you to capture 1.5 megapixel images at 7 frame per second, and I was very lucky to capture the dramatic effect of a .50 cal desert eagle firing into a bunch of water jugs because I hit the shutter a split second before my brother fired, so we got to see it from the beginning. I wasn't so lucky trying the same thing with the .45 hangun or the rifle, so didn't post those.
There was post-processing done to about 60% of them such that I applied the 'auto-contrast' adjustment from photoshop. No other post-processing was done.
Enjoy!
------------------
Nokie 'No you don't!! That belongs to me!' Quickfingers
-
Xisiqomelir
- Sojourner
- Posts: 870
- Joined: Sun Aug 25, 2002 5:01 am
- Location: Ixarkon
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Teyaha:
<B>in case you folks were wondering where i've been (yeah right)
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, I'd say that's better than Brass, definitely.
------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
<B>in case you folks were wondering where i've been (yeah right)
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, I'd say that's better than Brass, definitely.
------------------
Thus spake Shevarash: "Invokers are not going to be removed"
I have been looking for a relatively inexpensive (read sub $400) true manual focus digital camera. Any ideas, or am I dreaming again?
btw here's some shots I did for a local school band
http://24.154.105.86:7000/crestview
------------------
Team Cyric!
Fleeing is for wimps.
Any one see my corpse?
btw here's some shots I did for a local school band
http://24.154.105.86:7000/crestview
------------------
Team Cyric!
Fleeing is for wimps.
Any one see my corpse?
When I was out in California about a month ago my brother just got his Canon EOS D60 (with a fixed 50mm lens and a 28-150mm lens).
The difference between 'digital' viewfinder and true TTL optical viewfinder was incredible. There was no doubt when you took a picture if it was focused correctly or not. Not only that but it was so fast.
If I only have $4,000!
------------------
Nokie 'No you don't!! That belongs to me!' Quickfingers
The difference between 'digital' viewfinder and true TTL optical viewfinder was incredible. There was no doubt when you took a picture if it was focused correctly or not. Not only that but it was so fast.
If I only have $4,000!
------------------
Nokie 'No you don't!! That belongs to me!' Quickfingers
I really want a Nikon D1x, but if I had the money, I'd get the Mamiya 645 AFD with the digital back as well as the polaroid and 120/220 back. Right now I shoot with a Nikon N65 for film and my old Nikon Coolpix 800 (which was really good back when I bought it).
It's just too bad the economy sux so bad. I can't afford my dream camera(s) and I can't afford to really shoot any film I just hope I win the photo.com contest!
------------------
Musi "your happy little resser"
It's just too bad the economy sux so bad. I can't afford my dream camera(s) and I can't afford to really shoot any film
I just hope I win the photo.com contest!------------------
Musi "your happy little resser"
Teyaha is there a decent low-light film that's not astronomically expensive? I just spent some time in Chicago and went to the Shedd Aquarium there, some of my pics turned out great but the majority were way too dark. Although one I took of the dolphin show set against those enormous windows overlooking Lake Michigan full of the evening sky turned out pleasantly surprising... layers of orange, pink and blue sky behind jumping dolphin silhouettes.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ashiwi:
I just spent some time in Chicago and went to the Shedd Aquarium there, some of my pics turned out great but the majority were way too dark. Although one I took of the dolphin show set against those enormous windows overlooking Lake Michigan full of the evening sky turned out pleasantly surprising... layers of orange, pink and blue sky behind jumping dolphin silhouettes.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've been to the Shedd Aquarium! I wasn't overly impressed but I guess it seemed like a scaled-down version of Seaworld.
I tried to take a few photos with my Minolta Dimage 7i in the dar rooms with the tanks. Even though the tanks were light pretty bright, the camera still metered the image at too-low a shutter speed to be taken handheld. I think with a tripod (and a polarizer to cut out some of the glare from the glass?) it's possible to take some great pictures in an aquarium
------------------
Nokie 'No you don't!! That belongs to me!' Quickfingers
I just spent some time in Chicago and went to the Shedd Aquarium there, some of my pics turned out great but the majority were way too dark. Although one I took of the dolphin show set against those enormous windows overlooking Lake Michigan full of the evening sky turned out pleasantly surprising... layers of orange, pink and blue sky behind jumping dolphin silhouettes.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I've been to the Shedd Aquarium! I wasn't overly impressed but I guess it seemed like a scaled-down version of Seaworld.
I tried to take a few photos with my Minolta Dimage 7i in the dar rooms with the tanks. Even though the tanks were light pretty bright, the camera still metered the image at too-low a shutter speed to be taken handheld. I think with a tripod (and a polarizer to cut out some of the glare from the glass?) it's possible to take some great pictures in an aquarium
------------------
Nokie 'No you don't!! That belongs to me!' Quickfingers
Return to “S3 General Discussion Archive”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests