I might add that depth of field is controlled entirely by aperture and if there is a problem with getting the dog in focus.... depth of field is the key. Using hyperfocal distance when setting the distance and ƒ-stop - or should I say allowing for hyperfocal distance - may make the difference in shooting the pup. That means setting the focus point and then allowing for the len's ability to stay in focus either in front of the focus point or behind it to infinity. Everything within the hyperfocal distance will be reasonably in focus.
tripods/monopods - necessary beasts when actually needed - i just think they are not needed as much as people may think. As in the video Jon posted the link to - if you use good holding and breathing techniques - you can hand hold just about any lens up to the 800 and still get tack sharp picts at ridiculously slow shutter speeds.
Lighting is a whole nother topic - suffice it to say if your camera has a pop up flash... break it. Buy a good flash like a 420 or 580 and learn how to bounce it. When you've got that down, learn how to diffuse it and when you're done with that, learn how to shoot it in manual mode. After all that - your ready to strat learning about flash and buying triggers for remote flash.
2.8 - the minimum aperture on many pieces of standard glass. It can be your friend if you want nice creamy backgrounds and it can be your enemy when you are shooting a group and the front to back hyperfocal distance was forgotten. Nice pieces of glass allow even shorter hyperfocal distances - 2.0, 1.8, 1.4, 1.2, 1.0 it gets razor thin - so master 2,8 first.
ISO - use the lowest number you possibly can at all times. If your camera's lowest number is 100 but you can function control it down to 50... use 100. Try not to use the extended ends of the ISO range - even on a Nikon! Oneof the things I'm quickly learning is that Stock agencies really don't like digital noise in the photos. If they don't no one else does either. We can get away with it for snapshots - but not if you're going to try to sell these images. (of course if you are going to introduce a "film grain" filter - or be artsy - go for it - it doesn't matter)
Get used to the idea that you get your camera settings as good as you can, you control the camera and the lights and its all done in the camera.
THEN
you must use either Lightroom or Photoshop to finish the job. There isn't a photographer in the world that didn't manipulate his images and that includes Ansel Adams! Buy Scott Kelby's 7 step book and USE IT. Don't think you are being a purist by trying to do it all in the camera. And if you're a hard headed type - at least use the software Nikon or Canon provide you, shoot raw, and learn slowly how to make photographs out of the snapshots your camera delivers.
When all else fails, if it still isn't that sharp - and you've learned how to use the unsharp mask filter... buy better glass and better camera bodies. Don't beat yourself up if you're using a Rebel and a kit lens and wonder why things aren't quite right. I don't know what kind of camera you use - but don't think of comparing the results to a 1D Mark III or a 1DsMark III or a D3 or even a D300/700.
Its sorta like when we bought the S2000 - everybody and their brother would pull up to the traffic light and act like they wanted to race us - probably cause they knew the S2000 isn't a drag car. But we still blew the doors off everything so far except for another S2000 that was supercharged. Just saying compare apples to apples.
well i've been posting on this forum for 2 months and have said my equipment many times
i'm currently using an XSi
70-200 2.8
50 1.8
17-40 4
100 2.8 macro
2x extender ii
b+w kaesman cpl
i've seen a lot of images on flickr taken by the xsi that are looking similar to JU
No, you've seen screen images that you think look like a 1D Mark III - its not the same thing as actually looking at the image quality.
Nothing wrong with your Rebel - but don't mistake it for a pro camera. It isn't! Looks like you have a few decent lenses. and you have a 2x brick that should be drop kicked to the dog pen. If you don't know that by now - it may be hopeless...
Look - taking offense over the indefensible doesn't get you any closer to where you want to go with your photography. Jon U and I have done nothing but try to help you understand where the missing pieces are. What you do with them is your business.
JU, if you can take another shot at that leaf I'd like to see a really tight macro. It looks like it has a cool vein structure.
Something that would be neat to try but maybe hard to do is getting a really small backlight under it to make it sort of glow. Maybe one of those keychain LED flashlights that puts out a sort of bluish light?
Just a thought...
Edited by Mark Alexander on Aug 28, 2008 at 11:24 PM GMT
Atl, I think you and I were in the same place at one time. I too tried hard to get it totally right in the camera and really resisted the thought of doing any post work. After a few years and a lot of reading I came to realize that most of the really good stuff I was seeing (in books and galleries, no internet back then) had some post work done. This was in the film days. I really didn't want to set up a dark room with all of the hassle it brought so I concentrated on what I could which was a lot of colorful flowers with Kodachrome 25 and some gritty stuff with radically pushed tri x or ilford.
Fast forward to a few years ago when I got back into it with digital. Now post work is easier to make happen if more frustrating because you often have to spend more time learning a program than you do shooting.
Eventually I think you will have to throw in the towel and learn some post work that will compliment the vision you have in your camera. From a lot of reading here and looking at some really good photography (especially in the wedding forum) I came to realize that unique styles were a combo of good shooting and good PP.
I have a picture of a cabin that I took in the smokies on my first FM outing. I KNOW there is a picture in there. I pull it out every 6 months or so and take another stab at it. I'm slowly getting close but I'm not there yet.
You have some nice gear that appears to be just fine for most of the shooting you have shown us. I think it is just a matter of time and developing your style. But, thats the fun/frustrating part of it.
For me, I'm finally getting back on the horse this weekend at a small jazz festival. The first night we are going to go to the outside venues where I'm hoping there will be some decent lighting. The second night we are going to the inside performances where I hope to put the new 50 1.4 to the test...
Mark Alexander wrote:
JU, if you can take another shot at that leaf I'd like to see a really tight macro. It looks like it has a cool vein structure.
Something that would be neat to try but maybe hard to do is getting a really small backlight under it to make it sort of glow. Maybe one of those keychain LED flashlights that puts out a sort of bluish light?
Just a thought...
Edited by Mark Alexander on Aug 28, 2008 at 11:24 PM GMT
Excellent idea. I was taking the pup out to do his business when I noticed the leaf. I was already late for work...but had to grab the camera and 135L anyway...
I shouldn't have been suprised how much I was able to crop it. The MKIII is amazing.
ok one final shot because i think its cool, excuse the compression and poor colors
this is a Kevlar weeve from one of my stereo speakers cones through the macro on 2.8
ATL
no one said your camera was crappy but you. I said it wasn't a pro camera - there is a difference... in fact its not even a prosumer - 10D, 20D, 30D, 40D, 5D - though it can deliver good picts... just not 1D level images.
Of course, I'm living proof that a 1D camera can produce really shtty picts too!
Jon U, for lighting up that leaf - i bought one of those fiber optic slip on things for a small maglite. It has a 5 inch fiber optic channel that you can hide behind and under stuff and just shine the end under the leaf. Then its just a matter of adjusting the flash output so it doesn't overpower the fiber light.
I own both the ring flash and the twin light and in this case - the twin light would work too - using one in front and one behind and balancing the output to get the results you want. I wish the cords were a little longer on the twin lite though.
Edited by jbear2000 on Aug 29, 2008 at 08:10 AM GMT
1d III: RAW: Approx. 13.0MB (3,888 x 2,592)
XSi: RAW : Approx. 15.3 MB (4272 x 2848 pixels)
i'm not saying they're equal i'm just saying the images are just as large. just because its reduced on the site doesn't mean they didnt' PP it on the high res one and it looks similar and could be printed large.
atlphoto222 wrote:
1d III: RAW: Approx. 13.0MB (3,888 x 2,592)
XSi: RAW : Approx. 15.3 MB (4272 x 2848 pixels)
i'm not saying they're equal i'm just saying the images are just as large. just because its reduced on the site doesn't mean they didnt' PP it on the high res one and it looks similar and could be printed large.
is this the twilight zone or what? READ THE MANUALS Read something!
I have a friend with a P&S with 10 megapixels too - he is convinced his images can be blown up to poster size and equal in image quality to a pro camera. Why? because that is what the salesperson told him. He embarrasses himself every time he opens his uninformed mouth.
