Digital Camera & Photoshop tips

[Bunk]

I always have a fold up reflector disk in my car. White one side, silver the other, folds up to the size of a frizbee. Was worth the $40.

As to portrait lighting where you don't want to pack around strobes, having an extension cord for your speedlite works well.

[apocrypha]

DIY ringflash, made out of 2 bits of perspex, lined with aluminium foil, gaffer-taped together and stuck on top of an SB800 fired with the Nikon CLS:


It eats a lot of light (like 2 stops), has very shallow lighting depth of field (gotta be close to your subject) and the light isn't completely even - it's got a hot spot near the flash and a dark spot on the other side, about 1 stop difference.

Some pics taken with it (click for bigger):











You can see the unevenness if you look at the reflections in the eyes. Using it outside is difficult because it eats so much light so it becomes difficult to overpower the ambient unless it's quite dark. There's a few decent store-bought ones that do the same job - the Orbis and Ray Flash ones are pretty good - and they eat less light and are more even but they cost more like $200 instead of the £10 it cost to make mine :p 

Of course you can get a lot more carried away with building them... here's David Hobby (Strobist with his "HD (Home Depot) ring flash" made out of concrete forming tube and using 2 SB800s:


I keep planning to improve mine and try using it more, but it needs some creative thought to avoid clichéd looks with it - I've seen some nice use of ringflashes as part of multi-light setups and as on-axis fill, not just the old "supermodel up against a blank wall" look :p

[Sky]

Could've at least spray-painted the tube before he modded it, to look a bit nicer.

[apocrypha]

I think he made that exact comment on his blog after making it :p

[stray]

ah, so i splurged on that sigma. pretty nice! haven't had time for good example pics, and i'm waiting for better mem cards atm. but i like it. some of it could be better.. i think the LCD is a bit wonky for a camera like this. i've seen better lcd's on cheaper compacts. but once you feed the raws into your machine, there isn't a compact like this.

i'm tempted to get pro software now, but the sigma software isn't bad. this guy makes a pretty cool case for it : sigma vs adobe raw. organization wise, i only have iphoto. not sure if i need aperture. probably not [still a noob]

[Sky]

I dislike iPhoto. I guess the program may have some nifty features, but when I just want to move a bunch of photos, it wants to do it the iPhoto way. Only one person here is using it, everyone else uses Image Capture to put their photos in a sensible location.

[stray]

Well, it sucks atm just because it can't read Sigma RAW (at least the DP2). Not even sure if Aperture does now - I was under the impression that RAW compatibility was the same between the two (any Apple raw update seems to update both apps, if you have them). Picasa reads the Sigma files for a sec, but crashes. I suppose Adobe is the way to go for nifty organizing features, but if you glance at that vid above, it's not the way to go for editing these pics. Sigma Photo Pro is the best editor for them... while otoh, it's just a quick and dirty app otherwise.

[Obo]

I just got a gift of a Canon EOS 10D body to use for astrophotography with my telescope. I'd also like to use it for some normal use too, but I'm obviously missing a lens. So I was wondering if anyone had any advice on what I should be looking for in terms of sizes etc. for just a standard lens. It's been at least fifteen years since I've used anything other than a cheap point and shoot so I'm trying to wrap my head around what all these numbers mean again!

[apocrypha]

If you want a super-cheap lens the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 is supposed to be decent, but I'd recommend a cheapish zoom for an all-purpose main lens. There's a Canon 28-135mm f3.5-f5.6 that seems to be the default kit lens, no idea what the quality is like though but I'm sure it'd be plenty good enough.

The number with the mm is the focal length. On a small-sensor (or APS-C as they're known) camera like the 10D a focal length of about 35mm approximates a "normal" view, i.e. roughly how the human eye sees. Smaller focal lengths than that are wide angle, longer are telephoto. So 28-135mm gives you a range from moderate wide angle to decent telephoto.

The f number is the maximum aperture. This is the maximum size of the hole that opens up to let light through the lens when you take a picture and it's a ratio, i.e. the physical size of the opening relative to the focal length of the lens, which is why it varies on many zoom lenses. The smaller the number the larger the maximum aperture. The larger the aperture the more light can be let into the lens, allowing you to shoot in darker conditions relatively. It's also more difficult to make lenses with large maximum apertures, requiring better glass and more advanced construction internally, so the larger the maximum aperture of a lens, generally, the better quality the lens will be.

An f1.2 lens will be better quality than an f3.5 lens. A zoom with a max aperture of f2.8 at all focal lengths will be much better quality than the same zoom with a variable max aperture of f3.5-f5.6 for instance. The price differential is also, often, huge. e.g. the Nikon 55-200mm F4.5-5.6 is under £200, the 70-210mm f2.8 is over £1400. One is a decent lens, the other is a fucking awesome beautiful monster 

Hope that's helpful, shout if you need to know more, or less :)

[Mosesandstick]

Argh. I am having no fun trying to find a nice tripod and head. I want to go light and get something like the carbon graphite  manfrottos, but ideally I'm trying to keep my budget under 150 quid. I realise that the legs will keep and might serve me for a long time but my current financial situation means I'd rather go simple now and upgrade/replace later. It probably helps that I'm over 6 foot and can probably take the weight of a heavier tripod. Trying to look online is an absolute clusterfuck. There's nothing intuitive what so ever about any of the sites I've visited (gitzo, manfrotto). I might decide to go with a Slik. Anyone used those before?

Edit: Considering the D40 and the lenses I have, that's less than a kilo (excl. head) that needs to be supported by my tripod. That's like, nothing?
http://www.cliftoncameras.co.uk/Manfrotto_055XDB_Tripod_With_804RC_Head#product

Any thoughts? 3 sections, quite long closed (61cm). Not that light (2.1kg). Max payload 7kg. Includes a 3-way head with a quick release system.

I don't know how many Nikon DX users we have here, but if people are interested in the 35mm/1.8 I can write a bit about it.

Thanks for all the advice guys.

[IainC]

At the moment I have a cheap and cheerful compact digital camera (a Panasonic Lumix of around 3 year vintage). I'm looking to replace it with a 'proper' camera as I want to take better quality pictures of my miniatures and I live in an area that practically begs to be photographed nicely. I know very little about cameras but I do know that I want a digital SLR that can deal with macro lenses as well as general-duty zooms for outdoor work. My budget is about 500€ (call it $750) and I'll be in the US for three weeks of July so I can look at US resellers too.

What would the group consciousness here suggest?

[Trippy]

At the moment I have a cheap and cheerful compact digital camera (a Panasonic Lumix of around 3 year vintage). I'm looking to replace it with a 'proper' camera as I want to take better quality pictures of my miniatures and I live in an area that practically begs to be photographed nicely. I know very little about cameras but I do know that I want a digital SLR that can deal with macro lenses as well as general-duty zooms for outdoor work. My budget is about 500€ (call it $750) and I'll be in the US for three weeks of July so I can look at US resellers too.

What would the group consciousness here suggest?

Does that budget include a separate macro lens or is that extra?

In either case I'd suggest starting your research with the Nikon D60 and the Canon Digital Rebel XS (Canon EOS 1000D outside US).

[IainC]

At the moment I have a cheap and cheerful compact digital camera (a Panasonic Lumix of around 3 year vintage). I'm looking to replace it with a 'proper' camera as I want to take better quality pictures of my miniatures and I live in an area that practically begs to be photographed nicely. I know very little about cameras but I do know that I want a digital SLR that can deal with macro lenses as well as general-duty zooms for outdoor work. My budget is about 500€ (call it $750) and I'll be in the US for three weeks of July so I can look at US resellers too.

What would the group consciousness here suggest?

Does that budget include a separate macro lens or is that extra?

In either case I'd suggest starting your research with the Nikon D60 and the Canon Digital Rebel XS (Canon EOS 1000D outside US).

Ideally it would include the macro lens although I have no real idea what the cost is for that kind of thing. Some googling turns up lenses that cost 500€ as well as some for 50€ and it's not entirely clear what the differences are apart from price and brand. That's why I'm asking here rather than walking into my local camera store and asking them to load up my credit card for me.

Secondly, where is a good place to buy cameras? There is a very well stocked photography store just around the corner but I'm guessing that kit will be cheaper on Amazon or from a purely online retailer. Is the best price always the best deal or is there an advantage to paying a bit more and buying from a 'real dealer'? Is it worth looking at second hand equipment on Ebay or should I stay away if I don't really know what I'm looking at?

[Trippy]

It's like anything else you can buy online -- if you know what you want and don't need a store person to help you out it and you don't mind the hassle of having to possibly return/exchange something through the mail then online ordering is fine. I've purchased quite of bit of stuff online (and over the phone before that) from B&H Photo Video, for example. They also have a retail store in NYC.

Edit: I should add in here that B&H mentioned above was where I went to for online camera/video stuff in the past. Now with Amazon having dramatically expanded the stuff they carry themselves I would definitely consider buying camera/video gear from them as well, particularly since I have an Amazon Prime account so 2 day shipping on a lot of their items is free.

One thing to watch out for with camera equipment, though, is the warranty you are getting. Not sure how it works in Europe but here in the US camera dealers often carry both "domestic" and imported products from a manufacturer and that can affect the warranty coverage. E.g. for Canon stuff the products the retailer gets from Canon USA distributors come with Canon USA warranties (i.e. Canon USA warranties the product) and products bought from overseas distributors (aka "grey market" products) either don't have any warranty coverage at all in the US or are warrantied by the retailer. So if you buy something over here that has a territory specific warranty I'm not sure how the warranty would work back in Europe, if at all.

I've never used a macro lens before myself so somebody else will need to help you with that.

[IainC]

I went and spoke to the guy in the camera store and despite my terrible German he pointed at two cameras - an EOS 500D for 800€ (which Amazon lists for 750€) and a Nikon D60 at 400€ (which is pretty much smack on Amazon's price). The macro lens for the EOS is 450€ while the one for the Nikon runs at 700€ ish. Apparently macro lenses are horribly expensive. I really wasn't planning on dropping over a grand on a camera setup right off the bat, so what are my other options?

[apocrypha]

Yeah true macro lenses aren't cheap. There are Sigma and Tamron ones, but I don't know a lot about how good they are. There's a really good database of lens reviews here, but it'll require some time to go through them I reckon.

You can get "macro" filters that screw onto the front of a normal lens that are very cheap (example) but the quality is terrible and you don't get much macro-ness from them. You can also use extension tubes but again, they're a poor substitute for a dedicated macro lens, and they reduce your effective aperture a lot.

However, many standard "kit" lenses have some macro ability, and although it's often not as good as a true macro lens it's usually better than extension tubes or +dioptre filters. Here's a Tamron example in a Canon fit.

I'd suggest doing some searching on Amazon with the keyword "macro", checking lenses that seem to fit your budget on that lens review site and then going back to a large camera shop and asking to have a play with cameras and lenses. I think it's really important that you get to try the cameras out before you plonk down €500+. Try the 500D and the D60, for example. See how they feel in your hand, see how you like the menu systems, see how the controls seem to you. Get them to put a card in and a lens on, preferably one of the macro-capable zooms you've researched, and see how it feels in action. You can hopefully see just how macro the macro lens gets too.

There's not much to choose between Nikon & Canon really, they both make excellent cameras. The Nikon flashes have the edge over the Canon ones (marginally) and I prefer the build quality and feel of Nikons, but that's a personal thing. Canon just about have the edge in terms of resolution while Nikon tend to have better high-ISO performance at the moment, but they're all tiny differences.

[Trippy]

Not sure which macro lenses he showed you but Canon has one around US$275:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12145-USA/Canon_2537A003_50mm_f_2_5_Compact_Macro.html

Nikon's cheapest macro is more expensive at ~US$475:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/66987-USA/Nikon_1987_60mm_f_2_8D_Macro_Autofocus.html

The EOS 500D (Rebel T1i) is the newest and most expensive of the Digital Rebels (it can record HD video). There are cheaper ones like the 450D (XSi) and the 1000D (XS) like I mentioned above.

[Obo]

Thanks apocrypha. Picked up a 50mm f/1.8, though not as super cheap as it could have been. €135 brand new, rather than the typical €70-80 second-hand... if I could have found one.

[nurtsi]

Thanks apocrypha. Picked up a 50mm f/1.8, though not as super cheap as it could have been. €135 brand new, rather than the typical €70-80 second-hand... if I could have found one.

Where did you get it from? The thing is 99€ brand new in Finland and we're not exactly known for our cheapness.

[Obo]

Dublin. Renowned for our gouging. Everywhere seems to be in the €130-140 range. One place even had the list price as €159 before a small 'discount'.

[stray]

Has anyone ever used a contrast based autofocus before? This thing, I must admit, despite it being a sweet cam, is a bitch. It's really not very straightforward to shoot with at all. Especially in low light. I'm learning to just go old school and do everything manually... maybe that's not a bad idea in general anyways. I dunno.

[K9]

I'd suggest doing some searching on Amazon with the keyword "macro", checking lenses that seem to fit your budget on that lens review site and then going back to a large camera shop and asking to have a play with cameras and lenses.

n.b Apparently Nikon call all their macro lenses 'micro' as I have learnt recently; I guess this might affect search results.

[apocrypha]

Has anyone ever used a contrast based autofocus before? This thing, I must admit, despite it being a sweet cam, is a bitch. It's really not very straightforward to shoot with at all. Especially in low light. I'm learning to just go old school and do everything manually... maybe that's not a bad idea in general anyways. I dunno.

What camera? Contrast-based AF is kinda new and meant for use with liveview systems. If you can turn it off and you don't need to use liveview I would do so. I'm kind of old fashioned anyway and rarely trust *any* AF fully. They tend to focus on the nose not the eyes for instance, and there are plenty of times when that's a problem.

n.b Apparently Nikon call all their macro lenses 'micro' as I have learnt recently; I guess this might affect search results.

True but the description and/or keywords should still contain the word macro.

[stray]

Has anyone ever used a contrast based autofocus before? This thing, I must admit, despite it being a sweet cam, is a bitch. It's really not very straightforward to shoot with at all. Especially in low light. I'm learning to just go old school and do everything manually... maybe that's not a bad idea in general anyways. I dunno.

What camera? Contrast-based AF is kinda new and meant for use with liveview systems. If you can turn it off and you don't need to use liveview I would do so. I'm kind of old fashioned anyway and rarely trust *any* AF fully. They tend to focus on the nose not the eyes for instance, and there are plenty of times when that's a problem.

It's the sigma dp2 i've been chatting about a bit in this thread. (YEs! Sigma also makes cameras ) All of their models use this contrast system, I believe.

[apocrypha]

Ah yeah, ofc.

The slow (and noisy) autofocus is one of the two main criticisms I've read in DP2 reviews, the other being the build quality (for the price). The gist of the reviews I've read seem to say that the image quality is great but those are the downsides.

[stray]

The build quality is ok.. the autofocus has improved with firmware updates, but it could be better. No image stabilization either, and my hands are prone to shake. Umm, battery life is subpar as well.

I'm a beginner photographer in general, but I've gotten a few good images. It's hard not to, if you just shoot something mildly interesting. I just haven't used it enough to show what it can do. I will say that I was pretty inspired by this guy in particular, who was also impressing me with the DP1 a year ago. I wish he wouldn't hide metadata though.. I'd like to rip him off. 

[apocrypha]

inspired by this guy in particular, who was also impressing me with the DP1 a year ago. I wish he wouldn't hide metadata though.. I'd like to rip him off. 

Some nice pics there, but a lot of the look he's getting there is post-processing. Metadata isn't important usually, take inspiration from his compositions :)

[stray]

Yeah, but I'm curious about his PP. Just how much/little. There are other good photographers, who take a more natural approach, and their shit is good too - but his stand out to me. I'd like to know what the camera is or isn't capable of alone. He also has good subject matter... Tokyo is already colorful as it is. There might be less editing than it might seem.

The florals are post-processed, but not much. Or so I think. A simple negative adjustment with the fill light slider does the trick on my shots (not sure how other fill light implementations work.. i'm using sigma's raw editor. the fill light feature there is foveon specific).

[apocrypha]

Looking specifically at the first few flower pics on his stream I think he's cranking up the contrast and saturation and applying some curves, but I think he's also doing it selectively, i.e. using masks.

For example, this one has (I think) different curves applied to the flower and to the background. Also the way the reds blend and change into greens at the tips of the petals make me think he's done some channel mixing which has actually resulted in the reds in particular clipping quite badly. Same with this one - he's upped the saturation in the yellow channel on a separate layer with a mask to exclude the background and he's reduced the exposure (or brightness) on the background layer. It's hard to make anything more than educated guesses given the low resolution of the pics but I reckon that's the kind of thing going on there.

This one is obviously massively processed. Here's another example - selective toning and channel mixers and VAST amounts of sharpening applied to some areas and masked off of others.

I like his stuff, there's some good techniques there and he gets some great results, but it's definitely a heavily processed look in general.

[K9]

Hey Noisy, how are you?

[apocrypha]

Hey I'm just guessing, I could be completely wrong. In fact I had a very brief go at emulating the look he gets myself yesterday and couldn't get it at all, so I probably am full of crap 

[stray]

@apocrypha

another criticism of the dp2...

got to use it more... not sure if i said it, but it's a serious pain in low light. i know people are doing it, but i can't figure out how some are getting good shots at low iso. it's really pissing me off because the ideal photography i have in mind are night snapshots in color. black and white ain't bad, but not always my thing (and on that note, while low iso is incredible with Sigma cams, high iso is colorless and extremely noisy - worse than usual - but the good thing is, they look rather cool in monochrome - like iso800 or higher. 1600 and 3200 are very grainy, but appealing. so if you did like nighttime black and white, it's got something going for it there).

in daylight, it serves it's purpose though... it's just that i don't care to convey "happy sunny daytime snapshot photography" all of the time.   i might have to find another cam for nighttime, if i can't pull it off here..

[Furiously]

Tripod. It makes a big difference.

[Ookii]

Squeezing the trigger instead of pushing it works too.  Also make sure to brace it against yourself.

[stray]

Thanks guys.. Yeah, I had a tripod in mind, but trying to save some cash atm. I plan on it though. That said, it isn't the greatest performer in low light. While otoh, it is the sweetest compact in existence in good light.

I'm also considering Oly's EP-1 now though (their new micro 4/3). Around the same price, same size, but better consumer features like good HD video recording, etc.. as well as better low light performance. Not to mention the benefits of interchangeable lenses. It's not going to get better images out than the DP2 (the DP2 sensor is APS-C sized btw), but the Oly sounds more up my alley. I think it's up a shitload of people's alleys, in fact. The thing seems to already be selling like hotcakes.