Digital Camera & Photoshop tips

[Bunk]

Taking a course is great, as they should properly teach you the basics of manual settings. Force yourself to always use the manual settings, and stop and think about what effect each setting is going to have when you are taking a picture. As soon as you wander off to another location, stop and think through it all again - make it habitual.

Nothing worse than not realizing you had left the ISO cranked from the night before, after taking two dozen shots.

Oh, and if it hasn't been mentioned yet - shoot in RAW only, especially if you are learning PS, and make sure you have the Canon RAW plugins installed in your PS.

[Ookii]

I would just go here:

http://kelbytraining.com/

25 bucks a month, invaluable information.

Bought a used D700 yesterday with 5600 actuations for 1700 dollars, and I think I'm going to buy a used x1600 white lightning and softbox tonight for 350, also used. At this point I've also spent about two thousand dollars on models.

I would suggest getting into nature photography - you don't need flashes or models, so it's a lot cheaper.

[Nerf]

Anyone have some thoughts on the D5100?  Cameta has a "factory demo" (popular opinion is either refurb or 'new' but used to bypass MAP, lots of people reporting <50 actuations)  for $440 with an 18-55.
http://www.cameta.com/Nikon-D5100-Digital-SLR-Camera-18-55mm-G-VR-DX-AF-S-Zoom-Lens-Factory-Demo-62311.cfm

It's the best price I've seen yet, but I've read some complaints about a lot of the manual settings being buried inside the GUI, and that while it will take pictures damned close to the D7000, it's a lot more annoying to do so.
With black friday just weeks away, should I try to hold out for something a bit more user-friendly, or just spend the money on guns?

[apocrypha]

The DPReview reviews of both camera and lens are good places to start, if you've not already looked at them.

A quick skim makes me think that it's a decent camera but, as you say, less than ideal menu/function design, and that the lens is pretty good optically but clearly a cheap kit lens in terms of construction.

$440 is pretty cheap though, and I am opposed to anyone buying any guns ever for any reason! 

[Merusk]

I remember looking at the 5100 instead of the 7000 and it didn't seem like enough of an upgrade to the 3100 to justify the cost to me when paying retail, but I wanted more features than the 5100 offered. (Higher ISO, Dual memory cards, many more focus points, more buttons to make adjustments instead of software menus.) If you're happy with the features then I'd compare it to other cameras in the same price as you'd pay for that camera, which means the 3xxx series.  That appears to be the 3200 right now.

The 3200 has as many focus points as the 5100 and a better sensor and higher MP count.  The 5100 has bracketing while the 3200 doesn't and the 5100 has .3, .5, .7, 1 and 2 EV beyond the max 6400 ISO that both share, while the 3200 only gets to 1 EV above.

The 3200 is on Amazon for 590 right now so, you'd be paying ~$150 less for what's a better-featured camera with a lower MP count.  MP isn't everything, particularly if you're keeping them digital, so seems like a good deal to me.

[Mosesandstick]

Not much to say about the 5100 other than that it's replacement is coming soon (the 5200). You may want to think about waiting so that you can either look at the 5200 or see whether the 5100 drops in price.

[apocrypha]

D5200 announced.

[K9]

Interesting, I thought we'd see the D7100 first.

[Merusk]

Wow, I hate the body on that thing.  Not a fan of the control scheme, either.  I get where they're going with it but there's no way I'd enjoy using it and I don't consider myself at even the amateur photographer level.

[JWIV]

Really wish I had gotten around to upgrading my old 2GB sdcard and replacing it with an 8GB years ago.  While out in a gorgeous spot (Brookshire Gardens), I ended up filling the card fairly quickly and while trying to do a bi of clearing out space, ended up accidently deleting a few pictures I wish I could get back.  Lesson learned - 2GB was and is typically enough space, but a fifteen dollar upgrade could have saved me a bit of grief.

[murdoc]

So I'm going to bump this up as I had my original Canon that was stolen replaced with a T4i and a 18-55mm lens.

I've been look at getting an upgraded lens and an external flash as a belated birthday gift to myself and cannot decide on whether or not to replace the 18-55mm kit lens with something a little more substantial such as the 25-105mm that can be found for a reasonable price used, or split up the range and get a 70-200mm zoom lens and match it with a 24-70mm, which would mean I wouldn't get the flash at this time.

I am heavily leaning towards the more general purpose lens and flash as right now there's nothing I specifically am taking pictures of and am not going on any trips etc. The nice thing is that Canon opened up their Experience Center in the building I work in so that I can take my camera down there and try out any lenses I want without being pressured into a sale (they don't actually sell anything there). I was extremely impressed with the 24-105mm and the f/4 throughout the range. Focus was silent and fast and took really nice, sharp images.

The zoom comes in an IS and non-IS version, with a rather large difference in price - but with my shaky hands I think that I would be much better served with the IS version if I went that route.

I picked up Adobe Lightroom and it's awesome for someone with partial color blindness to correct photos. Even with my very brief time with it, I've been managing to fix a lot of my early photos.

Thoughts? Opinions? Anyone have any Canon lenses they want to sell for a decent price? :)

[Bunk]

Personally, I use my mid range lens far more than any other. I really like my 70-200L, but I really only pull it out for specific situations.

I have several lenses but the ones that get the most use are my 28-105 and my 1.8 50 prime (for portraits).

Also, a decent flash is pretty much required if you ever shoot inside without a tripod.

[Merusk]

What bunk said.  I've got the 18-200 that came with my Nikon and use that almost exclusively.  The 70-300 is only useful for very specific situations and the 1.2 55mm is for portraits and interior people shots. 

Other than that I, as an amateur, can't see a reason to pick up another lens unless I were to get an upgrade to one of those 3, moving in to the more expensive glass & manufacturing.

Seems the last major purchases I moved on to were a better bag system, tripod and flash.  The next wants are perhaps a meter or additional flash and stand to do scenes & lighting tricks.

[murdoc]

I was really leaning towards the 24-105mm lens and flash combo. Seems like it'll cover most things I would use the camera for and will be a lens I can just keep on it. I had also grabbed the 40mm pancake lens as the price was right and it had some really nice reviews.

[apocrypha]

I'm pretty much the same as Bunk & Merusk. My 24-70 gets the most use, 70-200 next, 85mm f1.2 or the 105mm macro next, but those are special purpose lenses. I am finding I want to use the 85mm more though.. it sounds odd but I find something liberating about a fixed focal length. I have to think about my framing and positioning more carefully instead of just zooming to frame.

And a decent flashgun is an awesome tool, especially if you start working with it off-camera.

[Bunk]

A friend recently was given a pile of old camera equipment his uncle had bought in the late 80's, and I ended up buying this honking old Metz flash from him. Completely manually controlled, comes with a huge bracket to mount it to the side of the camera - and looks to put out about twice the light my canon 480 does.

Merusk - if you are considering extra lights and have the room for a full strobe: http://www.paulcbuff.com/alienbees.php
 - many of them are cheaper than standard flash units.

[K9]

If I was going to recommend a prime as a first or second, I would recommend a 35mm over a 50mm or 85mm, simply because it's easier to use and has more general applications. Other people might disagree, but I think the combo of a short prime, and a longer zoom is the best basis.

I wish I had money for a 24-70mm lens though, that would be sweet.

[murdoc]

I looked at a 24-70 long enough to see the price and move on.

[K9]

I don't really know anything about Canon lenses, but they do a 55-250mm f4-5.6 and a 35mm f2 which both seem like reasonable starter lenses. Perhaps someone with more Canon experience could comment?

[apocrypha]

Merusk - if you are considering extra lights and have the room for a full strobe: http://www.paulcbuff.com/alienbees.php

Those are the lights I use for pro work :)  Got a couple of Einsteins that I mix in with hotshoe strobes. Good lights, and a very cheap way to get started with proper flashes.

[Khaldun]

I use a 50 1.8f prime on my Nikon and like it quite a bit; 70-300 is what I mostly use if I'm street shooting or nature shooting, though I also have some cheap macro filters for it that I diddle around with now and again. I may shift towards using the 70-300 at 70 for portraits a bit more too. 35 is short for portraiture but it's good for a lot of other things--landscapes and interiors, for example. 

Mulling over getting a wide angle of some kind before travelling this summer. They're all expensive, I might settle for a Sigma Tamron lens if I do rather than the more expensive and undoubtedly better Nikon lenses. (If I went Nikon, it would probably be for the 10-24 but the $800-ish price tag is pretty hard to swing.)

Been moving into strobist territory with two YongNuo speedlights, might get a strobe flash too. I was looking at the entry level AlienBee rather than the Einstein, but they both look good. My d3100 annoyingly can't be a wireless master for flashes on its own, I have to use a trigger that sits on the camera's hot shoe. Got some backdrops and umbrellas for Christmas, have taken over a section of the basement.

[Merusk]

Tameron is rated better than Nikon on a variety of their lenses, depending on what lens and what you're concerned about.   My 70-300 Nikon VR, for example, gets a lot of bad marks for Color fringing and not being as sharp as the Tameron in the same class.

I used to have a site bookmarked that did all these really great comparisons re: fringing, bokeh, sharpness and focus creep but I don't have it anymore.

[murdoc]

I used to have a site bookmarked that did all these really great comparisons re: fringing, bokeh, sharpness and focus creep but I don't have it anymore.

This one, perchance? http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Comparison-Tools.aspx

[Merusk]

Nope, the one I had contained actual reviews for the Nikon stuff.  That site just has a bunch of placeholders with referral links to troll for sales on all the Nikon zoom lenses.

[K9]

http://www.dpreview.com/ perhaps?

I use a 50 1.8f prime on my Nikon and like it quite a bit; 70-300 is what I mostly use if I'm street shooting or nature shooting, though I also have some cheap macro filters for it that I diddle around with now and again. I may shift towards using the 70-300 at 70 for portraits a bit more too. 35 is short for portraiture but it's good for a lot of other things--landscapes and interiors, for example. 

My 50mm f1.4 is my main day-to-day lens and I love it, but there are definitely an increasing number of situations, particularly indoors, where I cannot back up enough to frame the shot well. A 35mm would be a bit more forgiving there. As far as portraiture goes, you can shoot people with a 35mm fine; it is at the low end, but it's not a ludicrous notion.

[Trippy]

So I'm going to bump this up as I had my original Canon that was stolen replaced with a T4i and a 18-55mm lens.

I've been look at getting an upgraded lens and an external flash as a belated birthday gift to myself and cannot decide on whether or not to replace the 18-55mm kit lens with something a little more substantial such as the 25-105mm that can be found for a reasonable price used, or split up the range and get a 70-200mm zoom lens and match it with a 24-70mm, which would mean I wouldn't get the flash at this time.

I am heavily leaning towards the more general purpose lens and flash as right now there's nothing I specifically am taking pictures of and am not going on any trips etc. The nice thing is that Canon opened up their Experience Center in the building I work in so that I can take my camera down there and try out any lenses I want without being pressured into a sale (they don't actually sell anything there). I was extremely impressed with the 24-105mm and the f/4 throughout the range. Focus was silent and fast and took really nice, sharp images.

The zoom comes in an IS and non-IS version, with a rather large difference in price - but with my shaky hands I think that I would be much better served with the IS version if I went that route.

I picked up Adobe Lightroom and it's awesome for someone with partial color blindness to correct photos. Even with my very brief time with it, I've been managing to fix a lot of my early photos.

Thoughts? Opinions? Anyone have any Canon lenses they want to sell for a decent price? :)

The non-IS 24-70mm is f/2.8 compared to the IS f/4.0, though, so the IS may or may not be needed. However you are paying a lot of that speed (paying for the L lens and the fast speed).

If I had a budget of ~$1500 (the retail price of the 24-70mm f/4L IS USM ) for Canon lenses on a T4i, I think I'd go with the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM (~$1200) and the EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS II ($300). I grew up shooting with a f/1.4 50mm lens on the classic AE-1 so I like the faster lenses which the f/2.8 with IS would give me for everyday shooting. And then I'd have the (relatively) cheap zoom for when I needed one of those.

[Lt.Dan]

Hey Murdoc, I was in the same position as you a couple of years back although mine was a new camera rather than a stolen camera.

I've been through your whole thought process and have basically come full circle based on the things I like to photograph.  I started with fast primes (I have a f1.4 50mm and f2.0 20mm) moved to a Sigma 24-70mm f2.8, currently trying out a 70-300mm f4-6.3.  Right now I'm shooting the 50mm on film camera with black and white film.  All nice to try but I think if I'd given more thought to what I shot and what I liked to shoot I would have gone a different path.  I suggest giving yourself 6 months and go and shoot with th 18-55.  See where your interest lie. The 18-55 is still a nice lense and you'll still get good photos from it.  Then take the plunge and find a lens that suits your need.  I'd also suggest doing some shooting and setting your lens to a single focal length (24, 28, 35, or 50 are common lengths) for the day.

I use mine for:
- fast 50mm as a lighter walking lens on a film camera.  I find the field of view of bit narrow on my slr unless I'm doing a lot of shots inside then the extra stops make up for it (no flash needed).  Also a good first lens as it teaches you a lot about framing and sneaker zoom.  You can try out 50mm on the 18-55 although it’ll be 2-3 stops slower so more challenging for inside/night shooting.
- 20mm I've used a bit outside or inside.  It's an odd lens on a cropped slr as it's 35mm equiv but lower magnification - basically everything looks like it's a long way away.  It's best used up close.  You'll get the same experience on the 18-55 which will only be half a stop slower at the wide end.
-  the 24-70mm is a great walk about lens but very conspicuous and heavy (about 1.5 times the weight of the camera).  Get good variety of wide and tele. The 24-105 is about the same weight.  I've used it for day trips taking 300+ photos and never felt constrained because I didn't have "the tight lens".
- the 70-300mm has been a revelation.  I’ve used it for trips to the zoo, portraits, the harbour.  Mainly it’s taught me that I don’t always need a fast lens to take good photos.  A lot of my photos are family trips during the day and I just don’t need a fast lens when I’m shooting f8 – f16.  It’s pretty cheap (maybe $350) so worth the experiment in tele lenses. 

[apocrypha]

I used to have a site bookmarked that did all these really great comparisons re: fringing, bokeh, sharpness and focus creep but I don't have it anymore.

DxO Mark is very good for that kind of information.

I suggest giving yourself 6 months and go and shoot with th 18-55.  See where your interest lie. The 18-55 is still a nice lense and you'll still get good photos from it.  Then take the plunge and find a lens that suits your need.  I'd also suggest doing some shooting and setting your lens to a single focal length (24, 28, 35, or 50 are common lengths) for the day.

Very good advice :) Plus, if you get used to shooting with a kit lens when you do purchase better glass you'll appreciate it that much more!

[Khaldun]

Another thing that was a big change for me was getting a circular polarizer and some neutral density filters for my prime. Lets me shoot slow-shutter on water or get a darker, softer landscape look than I could otherwise in a wider range of light. Gotta walk with a tripod for that too, of course.

[murdoc]

I sorta/kinda get the various lenses - but I must admit, the whole filters thing has me a little confused. Other than being told I NEED a filter omg why don't you have a filter!? I don't know much else about them.

[Trippy]

Well the main reason to get a filter is that it's cheap protection for your lens. It's always a good idea to get a UV and/or Skylight filter for basic shooting.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/indepth/photography/buying-guides/uv-filters

[K9]

With respect to filters I think I'd offer a modified version of apocrypha's rule on full frame sensors: if you don't know why you need a filter, you don't need a filter.

That said, my understanding of the general applications of filters are thus. Neutral Density (ND) filters allow you to artificially stop a lens down, which is equivalent to having a smaller aperture. This permits at least two effects. Firstly, you can shoot long-exposures under brighter light, which is how people get those lovely long-exposure shots of moving water, or traffic, or clouds. Secondly, you can shoot with a wider aperture under brighter conditions. If you wanted to get a shallow depth of field in very bright conditions, then you might need to use an ND filter to prevent the shot from being over-exposed, as most cameras have a fastest possible shutter speed of 1/2000-1/4000 of a second, which could still be too slow if you were shooting something very bright at f1.2 or f1.4 without a filter. Circular polarisers I don't really understand; I know they help reduce glare, so if you are photographing shiny objects, particularly surfaces like glass or water, they can cut down on reflections. If you want to take one of those photos of a lake where you can see all the way to the bottom,  think it is more or less mandatory to have a circular polariser. Other applications, and other filters I have even less clue about.

[Bunk]

The only filter you "need" is a UV filter, and really that's just about protecting the lens. It's just much easier (and less nerve wracking) to clean the dust off of a $30 filter as opposed to the actual $600 lens.

I've used a circular polarizer and they are really great if you do shoot a lot of water or blue sky nature shots. If not, don't bother.

[Merusk]

They help with street shots of things in windows, too.  I really wished I had mine when I went to Disney as I have a lot of "oh look a reflection" shots of store displays.

[Khaldun]

They're good for anything where there's a reflection that might create blown highlights. But also they let you shoot through glass and get pretty good shots of what's on the other side at times. Anything where there's a lot of bright sky in the frame I also find the polarizer gets me a better-looking shot.

Took this from an Amtrak train with the polarizer on, for example:


the working of the world by swarthmoreburke, on Flickr