Digital Camera & Photoshop tips

[Bunk]

That pricepoint is a bit tough. With Canon, the Rebel XSi looks to be sitting around the $600 - $700 range right now.

If you don't mind last years model though, B&H has the Rebel XS at under $500 with a kit lens:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/571144-REG/Canon_2762B003_EOS_Rebel_XS_a_k_a_.html

It's actually a great starter DSLR.

[Salamok]

When you hit the $600-$700 price range it gets mighty tempting to bump it anoth $100 and go for a Nikon D80.  Whatever your choice you are pretty much buying into the brand as cannon and nikon lenses are not interchangeable.

[Merusk]

Yeah I was worried about the price range being too low to get into SLRs, but in the long term it really does seem to be the best bet.  I just can't justify spending the price on a decent one right now, plus lenses.

How do folks feel about the "Advanced" point and shoots with higher zoom factors than 5x.  Things like the 9.1 Cybershot or(the one my wife liked when we were checking them out at Best Buy the Canon Power Shot?

I liked the feel of the Nikon when we looked, now that I see it on the page at BB.

Tho a refurb'd D40 might work out, too.

[Bunk]

Once you get used to a DSLR, you won't want to touch a point and shoot, even an "advanced" one.

[Merusk]

Yeah I know that, which is why I'm hesitant to make the leap to even a cheap one, knowing it'll obsolete itself pretty quick and leave me Jonesin for a new camera for years.  Still paying off big debits so the constraint is a real and tight one.  The rest of the cash is going towards a replacement dishwasher and a heirloom clock of some sort.

[Salamok]

and the prices people are quoting come with at least 1 lens.  The nikon kit lens for the d70 was amazing enough to where I really didn't need another lens, my kit came with 2 lenses but i rarely ever bother loading up the 70-200 lens as i just don't shoot things that far away.  The standard 18-70mm lens that came with my D70s is just pure awesome (I think it retails over $400 by itself).

A dedicated macro lens would be nice but for $50 i can just buy the attachment that converts my existing lens to a macro lens the quality is still decent.  I also wouldn't mind one of those nifty 360 mirror/lenses for virtual tours but these are all addons that wouldn't even be an option with a non SLR.

The other cool thing is I can upgrade my D70 to a D90 for under $900, this isn't just a whistful thought as I am definately going to do this when the next gen beyond the D90 comes out and I can pick up a D90 body for $600 or so.

When looking at a DSLR you should also check out what lens it comes with/read the review and check pricing for the lens by itself.
With some certainty I can tell you 1 thing, if you buy a point and shoot it will be a total peice of shit in 5 years (if it even works), a DSLR will still take awesome pics though.

[Mosesandstick]

One of the things to remember is that buying lenses for a DSLR is an investment. Your cameras tend to expire and get thrown away  .

I  my D40, but there are two issues that bug me.

1. Buying the kit new always comes with the 18-55, which has now been superseded by the 18-55 VR. If you're shooting hand-held inside or low-light VR is a god send. Roughly speaking VR corresponds to about 3 stops worth of change which if I remember correctly is around 2^3 = 8 times the light collecting power.

2. Getting a wide-angle lens (which we were just discussing!). The Nikon D40 has an "AF-S" system, meaning any lens you buy has to have the motor inbuilt which often means buying a Nikkor lens. For a lot of things this is alright, getting the Nikon lenses (as opposed to a 3rd party) usually suffices. But the Nikkor 12-24mm is.... expensive.

For the D40 the baseline is that if you get the 18-55 and buy the 55-200 you can basically cover a range of 18-200 which is pretty much all you will need for a very long time. If you need more or less, move. The 55-200 VR is a pretty cheap lens as well.

[Merusk]

Yeah I've decided to get an SLR after reading y'alls feedback and talking to my sister last night.  I've been price shopping online and found a hell of a lot of scams, jebus christ New York state needs to ratchet-down on it's bait and switch laws.   It's soooo tempting to just get the 2 VR lens D60 package at Ritz Camera, but that's a lot more than I wanted to spend and screws the Dishwasher we need.    Damn purchasing.

[Bunk]

If you are in or near New York, B&H is where you want to be looking.

[Merusk]

Nope, nowhere near.  I'd found out about them on my searches and they weren't any better than Ritz for online prices.   Worse warranty program from what I read, too.  Ritz was replacement of anything for any reason except fire and theft, B&H was only 'normal wear and tear.'

[Salamok]

Yeah I've decided to get an SLR after reading y'alls feedback and talking to my sister last night.  I've been price shopping online and found a hell of a lot of scams, jebus christ New York state needs to ratchet-down on it's bait and switch laws.   It's soooo tempting to just get the 2 VR lens D60 package at Ritz Camera, but that's a lot more than I wanted to spend and screws the Dishwasher we need.    Damn purchasing.

I ran into the same confusion and ended up purchasing it locally.  There are 2 types of camera shops, 1 for the enthusiast and 1 run by shady new yorkers scamming the tourists.  Not to say you can't get a good camera from the latter but you seem to be running a greater risk of getting fleeced in the process.

edit -  Also I'm not implying that a new yorker isn't capable of owning a camera shop of the 1st variety.

[Arinon]

I used to work in Nikon's Tech support and can speak first hand about all the scams and bait and switches that come out of the New York area.  I don't think I ever encountered an issue like that that didn't originate there.

I don't have much respect for any point and shoot camera, advanced or not.  You are either at camera phone level or at the point you can get an entry level D-SLR.  The middle ground tends to be filled with gimmicks and convenience things that don't impact image quality.  Photography is about light and you need real lenses to gather enough of it.

[Stewie]

One of the nice things about getting an entry level dslr is that the big box's carry em (Nikon/Canon) and you can always use them as a fall back to purchase.
That being said, you might even try craigslist for a good used body like a 30d for cheap if at all possible and then just get the kit lens separately.

Oh and imho opinion stick to either Nikon or Canon (personally I prefer Canon) as these give you the best lens options and best proven track records. All the pros use em, why not you?

[Merusk]

Got a nice package on a D60 from Sam's with the 18-55 VR lens. $539 total, so I can't complain.  I pick it up & pay on Saturday, woo!

[apocrypha]

I don't have much respect for any point and shoot camera, advanced or not.  You are either at camera phone level or at the point you can get an entry level D-SLR.  The middle ground tends to be filled with gimmicks and convenience things that don't impact image quality.  Photography is about light and you need real lenses to gather enough of it.

That's a bit unfair, there's many awesome photos taken with compact cameras, just have a look on Flickr's camera search. Pretty much any compact camera you search for will turn up some great photos. And there are a few sub-SLRs out there that are superb cameras with pretty decent lenses.

I've been a bit of an evangelist for the Canon G series in this respect. The G6 in particular had a fantastic lens and the G9 is a superb emergency backup camera - I know a couple of pros who use them as just that. The old cliche about the most important part of a camera being the person holding it is very true I think. I mean you can even find some great photos taken with iPhones ffs! Sure, they'd suffer if you printed them out at A2 but how many of the photos most people take get printed out that size?

SLRs and nice lenses give you more control, better quality and get in the way of a great photo less than a compact camera or a poor lens, but they don't take great pictures by themselves.

Aaaaanyway, back on-track, the D60 is a great camera Merusk :)  One thing that in my view makes the Nikons a better bet than Canons is the flashes. Nikon flashes are so much better than Canons for off-camera use. Canon still haven't learned that sync ports and manual slaves are essential for off-camera use and given that they've just released a new flash that appears to *again* have neither of those things, well, I don't think they're ever going to learn that, silly buggers.

[Mosesandstick]

Grats! Now just wait till you start playing with the camera and start thinking about having a lens with a longer zoom. Or a wider field of view. Or a faster lens. Or one with less distortion. Or one with less chromatic aberration, etc. The real problem comes when you start buying everything you want.

[Merusk]

Well, TBH the driving force behind buying a Nikon was both my sisters have one as well.  The p.j. one is graduating soon and has a D90, and the other one bought her old D40 so I've already got a few lenses I can borrow.   Well, I can borrow them from my p.j. sis if I'm willing to put-up a kid as collateral, she said.   I'm pretty sure she wasn't joking.

[Righ]

Nikon's 11am press release tomorrow is presumably this:

http://niksthailand.co.th/

The 50000 is a typo, its a D5000, the replacement for the D40. Note also the AFS DX 10-24 ED.

[Bunk]

Aaaaanyway, back on-track, the D60 is a great camera Merusk :)  One thing that in my view makes the Nikons a better bet than Canons is the flashes. Nikon flashes are so much better than Canons for off-camera use. Canon still haven't learned that sync ports and manual slaves are essential for off-camera use and given that they've just released a new flash that appears to *again* have neither of those things, well, I don't think they're ever going to learn that, silly buggers.

Bah! Skip the Nikor/Canon Flashes all together and get yourself proper strobes like I did!

Seriously though, funny thing is, my strobes actually ended up cheaper than one of the high end flashes. I use my $200 used speedlight for simple stuff and fill, setup my strobes for anything more complex.

[Mosesandstick]

Nikon's 11am press release tomorrow is presumably this:

http://niksthailand.co.th/

The 50000 is a typo, its a D5000, the replacement for the D40. Note also the AFS DX 10-24 ED.

DX + ED = Affordable? I hope so! Is the 10-24 designed to be a replacement for the 12-24?

[Righ]

If a grand is affordable, sure. It's almost certainly going to replace the 12-24mm f4, so I expect it to cost around the same.

Pictures of camera and lens:

http://press.nikon.se/D-SLR/
http://press.nikon.se/Objektiv/

[Mosesandstick]

Ah shit. For some reason at first I thought it was one of their 'G' gelded options. So much for buying a wide-angle lens any time soon, haha.

[apocrypha]

€849 so yeah, $1000+ probably.

[Mosesandstick]

If I didn't have a D40 I'd get the damn Tokina 11-16. But then autofocus isn't so important on wide angel lenses. So confused  .

[Righ]

Well yeah, for the price of the Nikon lens, you could buy the Tokina and a used D70 for those times when you need autofocus.

The D5000 is an interesting camera. It's clearly not a replacement for anything - its something different. And if the 10-24 lens is 850 Euro, we'll probably get it for around $900 over here. Yes, we get that big a break.

[apocrypha]

I think there's going to be a few cameras like the D5000 over the next 12 months or so - squarely aimed at the crossover between high-end compacts and bottom end DSLRs.

Oh and you don't get a break on prices, we get shafted 

[Mosesandstick]

Question!

What do you people use for printing photos? I'm 'specially interested in photobooks. It helps if it's UK based =P.

I also need help editing photos (photoshop!). I took some photos at a dance performance a wee bit ago that I want touched up. Most of the photos sort of look OK-ish at certain sizes (I'm looking at it on a 17" monitor), but the problem is that I need to blow the photos up. To cut a long story short most of what I've got in my photo is just useless. I was taking these photos practically as far as I could push the camera, ~1/100s, 1.8, 800 iso (prob. shouldve used 1600).

Now I need to perform digital magic and make the photos look nicer. Unfortunately the lighting flat-out sucked. Uneven, harsh colours and very, very, dim. I've read about using noise-reducing filters and all sorts of Gaussian magic and that sort of thing, and I'll spend some time playing with thoese things. I'm probably going to spend a lot of time playing with the colour and lighting curves as well. Anyone have any advice to offer?

I've got a picture of what I'm working with below: (and this is one of the better shots)

Another picture:

After some shopping:

The second shot looks a bit grey and washed out, but it doesn't have the exaggerated highlights of the previous.

[apocrypha]

For printing I use this place. They're based near me (Bradford) and are pretty cheap and excellent quality. They only print up to 16"x12" and you have to prepare your files very specifically (calibrated monitor, correct DPI, etc) and put them on a CD in correctly labelled folders etc so they can just stick it in their machine and press the GO button, which is partly why they're so cheap. I used to print my own on an Epson R800 but worked out that unless I was printing 10 or more prints a week it was cheaper and easier to just get ProAm to print them. Ink wastage in low-volume printers is a bitch.

Not sure what to suggest with the photos. I'm a bit rubbish at dealing with noise and recovering badly exposed photos (no offense, looks like you did pretty well in a shitty situation!), I seem to find that if the info ain't there then there's not much I can manage to do to rescue it. Noise Ninja is a good noise reduction filter for Photoshop, but with high ISO noise there comes a point when you're just destroying what little detail there is. You can do heavy noise reduction on a separate layer and blend it in with a mask only in the areas where it shows, and mask it off on edges and fine detail areas, but it's time consuming and at the end of the day the results are limited.

Same with the clipped highlights. If you've shot in RAW then you can use the highlight recovery slider in the Adobe RAW conversion dialogue and then use that as a separate layer again and carefully blend in but if you've already done that and not got any more information out of those clipped pixels then there's not much you can do other than draw it in yourself, which unless you're way way better at it than me tends to look shit :/ 

Stage performances are really hard to photograph. I got offered a job a couple of years ago to shoot a performance of dance students at a college and when I asked about using strobes they flat out refused, saying it would be too distracting for the dancers. I turned the job down.

[stray]

I'm stoked, the Sigma DP2 is more widely available now in EU and can be ordered.. think it's coming to US officially next month. I'm definitely getting it.

[schild]

I'm stoked, the Sigma DP2 is more widely available now in EU and can be ordered.. think it's coming to US officially next month. I'm definitely getting it.

People are saying it's a pain in the ass, as much if not moreso than the first, to get good pictures out of.

[stray]

I've heard there have been faulty models/screwed up mechanics, but picture quality so far looks as great as DP1, but without the wide lens. A lot of them are showing up on flickr. But there's a guy with a private blog with a slew of good examples. Wish I knew the address now. Anyways I guess I can only hope I don't get a broken one..

You will not sway me ;) I'm begging for a cam like this.

[stray]

Some nice examples:

good casual portrait here..



cool bokeh


nice landscape


foods


i dunno, this is just a damn good shot


[edit] not that i can achieve that..who knows..maybe 1 out 50 images. but it'd be nice to have a compact around that's capable of it though. i'd say it's already difficult to get worthwhile images out of compacts, so no loss there. but i do love the autonomy/informality that compacts grant.

[nurtsi]

Anyone have experience with ring flashes (or ring flash adapters/prisms)? The few I've seen look pretty big, are they something you'd considering taking with you out of the studio if you want to shoot some stuff outside?

[Ookii]

Anyone have experience with ring flashes (or ring flash adapters/prisms)? The few I've seen look pretty big, are they something you'd considering taking with you out of the studio if you want to shoot some stuff outside?

Not I, but I was thinking of making a DIY version sometime soon. There a bunch posted on DIYPhotography.net, and they always post pictures of the results.

As for outdoors, I'm sure someone here knows the answer (or googles it and looks like they know the answer).  I'd think I'd use one if I did an outdoor portrait and needed to use on-camera flash.  It seems like the best option when you can go off axis with a softbox or whatnot.

[Salamok]

Anyone have experience with ring flashes (or ring flash adapters/prisms)? The few I've seen look pretty big, are they something you'd considering taking with you out of the studio if you want to shoot some stuff outside?

Not I, but I was thinking of making a DIY version sometime soon. There a bunch posted on DIYPhotography.net, and they always post pictures of the results.

As for outdoors, I'm sure someone here knows the answer (or googles it and looks like they know the answer).  I'd think I'd use one if I did an outdoor portrait and needed to use on-camera flash.  It seems like the best option when you can go off axis with a softbox or whatnot.

Another portable lighting solution that could work in some portrait type of scenarios are reflectors.  I have seen some fabric ones on the twisty/collapsible wire frames that you could probably just carry around under the seat of your car and whip out whenever needed.