Home Forums Am I a Fauxtog? My favorite local fauxtog

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 109 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #10715
    cameraclicker
    Participant

    I have a Facebook page with absolutely nothing on it.  I put up one photo and discovered it stripped my EXIF data, so I deleted it.  I have a couple of Flickr pages, the one below and another (http://www.flickr.com/photos/camera_clicker/  The Toronto Harbour photo on page 17 was the first night photo I took, using my new hand held light meter in February or March of 1975.  It’s nice to see it there, I misplaced the slide!) with 1700 photos on it, as well as my own web page (http://cameraclicker.com) with about 3000 photos.

    The lens you choose depends on what your objective is.  I have the Canon 50 mm f/1.8 because it is cheap plastic that does not weigh anything and it goes well with the Rebel T2i, that is also pretty light.  I have the 18-55 kit lens, as I said before.  I have others as well.  Some get a lot of use, others much less, mostly due to weight and what I shoot.

    I set up a couple of coffee cans and shot them through some different lenses this morning using the Rebel T2i, which should give you a very good comparison of a few lenses.

    The camera is about 8.5 feet from the first coffee can.  It is about 3 feet to the second coffee can and another 3 feet to the backdrop, so 14.5 feet from camera to backdrop.  I posted the full size photos on Flickr so you can click through and see the lens and exposure details.  Lighting was done with a Bowens strobe into an umbrella and then exposure and white balance were adjusted in Adobe Camera Raw to get the white coffee can exactly the same in all photos, which was easier than dialing in the exact light power for each f stop.

    Sigma 85 mm at f/1.4

    2013-06-11_11-58-38_IMG_4035

    Sigma 85 at f/2.8

    2013-06-11_12-00-48_IMG_4036

    Sigma 85 at f/5.6

    2013-06-11_12-01-40_IMG_4037

    Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM L at f/5.6, at 80 mm

    2013-06-11_12-04-28_IMG_4038

    Canon 70-200 at f/2.8 IS USM L at f/2.8, at 80 mm

    2013-06-11_12-04-56_IMG_4039

    Sigma 18-250 at f/5.6 at 50 mm — this is a lens I use a lot with the T2i

    2013-06-11_12-10-54_IMG_4044

    Canon 18-55 at f/5.6 at 53 mm

    2013-06-11_12-09-08_IMG_4043

    Canon 50 at f/5.6

    2013-06-11_12-07-42_IMG_4042

    Canon 50 at f/2.8

    2013-06-11_12-07-12_IMG_4041

    Canon 50 at f/1.8

    2013-06-11_12-06-42_IMG_4040

    Regarding auto vs manual focus, the digital bodies and some of the lenses were designed with the intention that you use auto-focus.  When they expected you to use manual focus they put a split prism into the focusing screen so you could tell when focus was achieved.  All the digital bodies I have seen just have a plain ground glass like focusing screen.  The 18-55 and 50 f/1.8 lenses have virtually nothing to grab, to focus.  You turn the filter thread!  Not manual focus friendly at all!  By comparison, my other lenses have decently sized focusing rings where you can find them without looking, and many also have full time manual override so you can focus manually without turning off auto-focus.  Manual focus is great for macro, for a bird in a tree where the branches keep focus from finding the bird, or for focusing for a location you expect your subject to arrive at and remain very briefly — like a racing car coming around a corner and popping into view before screaming past you.  Generally the camera can focus much faster and more accurately than I can, and in servo mode it can track moving subjects better than I can, so generally I let the camera worry about focus and I just set the focus point I want it to use.

    #10716
    iliketag
    Participant

    Be aware that the 50mm 1.8 will tend to hunt (take it’s sweet time finding focus) during auto focus if the lighting is not entirely adequate.
    CameraClicker just provided you with an excellent example of focal lengths and how to achieve those softer backgrounds and how much focus you can get from a given lens.

    Another thing I want to address: Please work on constructing your posts better. I have a very hard time reading them, as they lack punctuation and are phrased in confusing ways.
    My facebook page for my business (for when I get there) is also blank. So I use a flickr with a handful of my favorite images, though I haven’t updated it recently.

    #10719
    nesgran
    Participant

    I’m personally not a fan of the 50mm 1.8, I’d rather recommend the 85mm f1.8. It gives a more flattering compression to people, build quality is far superior, it has a USM motor (silent and you can grab the focus ring even when in AF mode) and with the longer focal length you get better subject isolation. The 85mm is more expensive admittedly but it can usually be had for a few hundred $ on the used market. It will be a bit front heavy with your rebel body but not too bad.

    As for your photos, looking at the Melissa series. You’ve made her feel happy and confident, that is obvious from the photos. They have come out well, what lets you down is your framing of the photos. Here is a quick guide for better framing http://www.gieson.com/school/photos/. There are other problems, some of the shots aren’t sharp, make sure you look at the photos at 100% magnification. They don’t have to be completely sharp unless you plan on printing them at bigger than 8×12″ but when it is obvious from the facebook shots that they aren’t sharp they should go in the recycling bin sadly. Shots like this has great lighting https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=583123481718519&set=a.583123458385188.1073741856.561775373853330&type=1&theater whereas shots like this doesn’t https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=583123831718484&set=a.583123458385188.1073741856.561775373853330&type=1&theater . Consider how the light falls on the subject’s face, the first shot her face is lit properly, you can see her eyes clearly. In the second shot it is the opposite, her face is shadowed and you can’t make out here eyes clearly. In fact, next point, the eyes when shooting portraits is the single most important bit of the photo. They are what should be sharp, they are what should follow the rule of thirds. Reason is that our brains are hard wired with recognise faces, in fact there is a small bit of the brain that lights up when looking at a face and eyes is the natural focal point.

    Here’s a laundry list of things you shouldn’t do again (teal vignette) https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=583124065051794&set=a.583123458385188.1073741856.561775373853330&type=1&theater (colour balance completely off, too warm) https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=583123475051853&set=a.583123458385188.1073741856.561775373853330&type=1&theater (the frame and the green tint) https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=583123685051832&set=a.583123458385188.1073741856.561775373853330&type=1&theater (don’t ever do this fake starburst again) https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=572511536113047&set=a.561778680519666.1073741827.561775373853330&type=1&theater (green looking kid) https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=573347076029493&set=a.573347039362830.1073741848.561775373853330&type=1&theater (red eyes) https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=572874286076772&set=a.564987040198830.1073741833.561775373853330&type=1&theater (grey kid, when you selectively colour like that people look grey and dead, in fact, don’t selectively colour because it almost always looks tacky) https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=573347099362824&set=a.573347039362830.1073741848.561775373853330&type=1&theater (pop up flash, it is not a flattering kind of flash) https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=576830469014487&set=a.576830395681161.1073741851.561775373853330&type=1&theater (out of focus, way too out of focus and there’s some white balance issues going on as well) https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=581245678572966&set=a.581245558572978.1073741854.561775373853330&type=1&theater (way too saturated and blown highlights) https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=581245811906286&set=a.581245558572978.1073741854.561775373853330&type=1&theater

    You have a few over exposed shots, do you look at the histogram? Do you use raw? You should look at the histogram to make sure the highlights aren’t blown out. Here is a little tutorial to understand the histogram, you get it by pressing the info button while looking at a picture http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/histograms1.htm . Using raw you’d be able to rescue one or two of the over exposed shots and you would be able to change saturation in a more natural way.

    I honestly think you have a good eye for it, the big things that let you down are A) you aren’t selective enough in the shots you post B) Your editing, teal vignettes and selective colour etc isn’t good C) Out of focus shots and D) your lack of an external flash. I saw you had one in one of your posts, read the lighting 101 and preferably 102 on http://www.strobist.com . With a minimal investment since you have the flash already you’d be able to light your shots better when natural light isn’t on your side. Everything listed you can pick up on ebay for $100: Lightstand $25, umbrella holder $15, white shoot through umbrella $15, pair Yongnou radio triggers RF-603 $40, batteries for triggers $5. This would have let you lit up Melissa’s face in that photo when she is resting on her elbows.

     

    As for using manual focus on a rebel body, don’t do it. The focus screen isn’t made for it and the tiny viewfinder makes it excessively hard to achieve good focus. If you want to do manual focus get a full frame 5D mkII or a 6D and get the focus screen designed for manual focus.

    Good luck and keep at it!

    #10721
    blueeyes1128
    Participant

    thank you for all that that is trying to help. im going to do a practice shoot with a family that has a horse this weekend and see how it goes.

    #10724
    blueeyes1128
    Participant

    here another company yall can check out if you want . https://www.facebook.com/Kristy243023?ref=ts&fref=ts

     

    #10726
    iliketag
    Participant

    Eep! Nes that post did not format well!

    #10736
    fstopper89
    Participant

    @blueeyes, here is an example of using cheaper gear for a portrait and it not turning out very well.

    June2013-4220-Edit

    Keep in mind, I 100% knew that this would probably be my result beforehand tonight. It’s not “profesional” quality work, and is really just a nice snapshot. I went out into the wilderness, and knew I’d have to wade in my rainboots across an almost-dry river, over mossy stones, and was not going to being my 5D Mark II or my 70-200 f/2.8 lens, because those are VERY expensive and I cannot risk them getting wet or damaged if I were to slip on the rocks. If my Rebel or one of the kit lenses gets damaged, it won’t stop me from doing what I do, and that is why I took them on my hike.

    This photo was shot with a T2i, and the 55-250 f/4.0-5.6 telephoto kit lens. It’s a really crummy lens for any portraiture to be honest, but for doing nature shots, it’s not terrible. Especially on a crop body, that focal length is really magnified and I am able to get a shallow depth of field even at f/5.6 and some nice bokeh. But this lens hardly ever takes a sharp photo, especially in low light. Plus, the Rebel can’t perform well over around 400 ISO. After that it gets pretty noisy/grainy. This was shot at 800 ISO.

    I did edit it in both Lightroom and Photoshop, where I removed noise, increased the exposure (it was pretty underexposed, my mistake), and adjusted the color temperature and saturation. I made it look as good as I possibly could.

    If you view some of my other work on Flickr, you’ll see that some portraits are tack sharp even on the Rebel. It is because I used a high-quality lens.

    #10742
    nesgran
    Participant

    BEG, what is up with the weird glow around the guy? Did you dodge and burn in post for better contrast?

    #10744
    cameraclicker
    Participant

    BrownEyedGirl89, on a hike I would take my Rebel T2i as well.  Not because I am worried about damage but because it is relatively light and if hiking I would expect to have to carry it.

    I don’t have and have not used the EF-S 55-250 f/4-5.6.  It does not mate with a teleconverter so that makes it a non-starter for me.  However, if it is not sharp, that would be a second reason to not have it.

    I take exception to a couple of things you said:

    Especially on a crop body, that focal length is really magnified and I am able to get a shallow depth of field even at f/5.6 and some nice bokeh.

    A crop body does not change the focal length of a lens.  It does not affect depth of field, regardless of what some defective DOF calculators may indicate.  The reason little point & shoot cameras and cell phones have such deep depth of field is their lenses are very short.  The apparent length of their lens is due to packing far more very small pixels onto their tiny sensors.  They take “crop” to the extreme, making very short lenses seem long by cropping with a very, very small sensor.  Look at the PowerShot ELPH 330 HS, for instance:  4.3 (W) – 43.0 (T) mm (35mm film equivalent: 24 (W) – 240 (T) mm).  If they actually gave you a 240 mm lens, you could get very shallow DOF, but since they actually give you a maximum of 43 mm, you really have to work to get shallow DOF.  Really, since they give somewhere between 36 and 50 mm, it should not be too hard to get shallow DOF if you could open it up enough, except the crop is such that you couldn’t get a person’s face in the frame when working at the distances you would use for 50 mm on an SLR.

    Plus, the Rebel can’t perform well over around 400 ISO. After that it gets pretty noisy/grainy. This was shot at 800 ISO.

    I suppose it depends on what you want to use the photo for and maybe the circumstances around taking it.  If the choice is between having a photo taken at high ISO or not having the photo because you can not get enough shutter speed, I would take high ISO.  Also, the Rebel may not be quite as good as a 5D Mk III, but compared to a G11 it is a star.  In fact, it can take a very good photo at high ISO settings I can’t even set on my 1Ds Mk III!

    2011-07-08_10-16-38_IMG_6440

    This is straight from the camera, no noise correction.  It was taken on a cruise ship.  The speaker is on the ship’s stage in a single spotlight and the theatre was pretty dark as he was showing photos of Alaska to support his talk.  You can tell from the settings that there was not much light.  It was taken with a Rebel T2i and Sigma 18-250 lens.  At ISO 6400!  The focal length was 250 mm and the shutter speed was 1/90th.  You’ve got to love image stabilization!  Aperture was f/5.6.  Is noise objectionable?  Not to my mind.  Certainly not unless it was going to be printed on a billboard and in that case, most viewers would be too far away to see the noise anyway.

    #10745
    JCFindley
    Participant

    mmmmmmm, mossy rocks, swamps, cliffs and 30 pounds of gear/supplies on my back….. NOW we are talking photography!

    Funny story, in the middle of a creek I get my foot caught on a rock and start going down so might right hand and the 5D and tripod go up, my other hand flails around to try and break my fall and flings my wedding ring to who knows where and I end up almost under water but by God the 5D remained above water level. Broken bones and bruises heal, men’s rings are cheap but I would not survive losing my favorite body and lens.

    <a href=”http://jc-findley.artistwebsites.com/featured/a-rocky-road-jc-findley.html&#8221; target=”_blank”>here</a>

    #10746
    nesgran
    Participant

    Actually, I was going to write a little about minimising noise. Using ETTR (expose to the right) you can get away with pretty low noise, or at least not too intrusive. I have an ancient 40D still going strong (lovely camera actually) and when it came out ISO 1600 would look bad. With ETTR though and some modern noise reduction the results are still very good even at ISO 1600 with very little colour noise.

    ETTR: overexpose deliberately by 2/3 stop and then pull back in post. It minimises shadow noise as on Canons at least that is the most troubling bit. Only downside is that one has to keep looking at the histogram to make sure highlights aren’t clipped.

    As for lugging kit, I think I win 🙂 . I brought a 350D and a sigma 18-125 lens mountaineering in central asia. Nearest road was two days walk and nearest people at least five days away at an altitude  topped out with the rebel at about 4300m. I’m still kicking myself I didn’t bring a better camera and lens. Next time I’m thinking 6D, 24-105, 580EXII flash, carbon fibre tripod, flash bracket and an umbrella. These trips need to pay for themselves after all.

     

     

     

     

    #10751
    cameraclicker
    Participant

    JCFindley, the link didn’t work.

    #10752
    Thom
    Participant

    I’m dismayed at the amount of discussion on specs for gear, when the real issue is learning the craft of observing and absorbing the world first.

    #10753
    JCFindley
    Participant
    #10754
    fstopper89
    Participant

    You’re right, I was a little heavy on the vignette. That accounts for the glow-y look.

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 109 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.