She's cute.
I'm getting closer to my 50D btw. I might be contacting you for some last minute advice soon .
I'm getting closer to my 50D btw. I might be contacting you for some last minute advice soon .
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Cool!Kmarion wrote:
She's cute.
I'm getting closer to my 50D btw. I might be contacting you for some last minute advice soon .
I wanna get another camera to compliment my 40D (cause changing lenses when i'm covering cadet things is a total bitch). A 1D3. Lol, will never happen.
Or a 5D. That is possible since the 5Dmk2 came out. Prices are coming down. Hmm...
Mmmyea, that is definitely out of my budget.mcminty wrote:
Cool!Kmarion wrote:
She's cute.
I'm getting closer to my 50D btw. I might be contacting you for some last minute advice soon .
I wanna get another camera to compliment my 40D (cause changing lenses when i'm covering cadet things is a total bitch). A 1D3. Lol, will never happen.
Or a 5D. That is possible since the 5Dmk2 came out. Prices are coming down. Hmm...
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I guess I should give a shout out to the place I learnt all of this lighting stuff.
Strobist - Learn How To Light
Strobist - Learn How To Light
I saw that in one of your captions. I will check it out.mcminty wrote:
I guess I should give a shout out to the place I learnt all of this lighting stuff.
Strobist - Learn How To Light
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Be wary Kerry. It's a long and expensive downhill from here..
I learned that when I bought my first lens. It was almost as much as my camera .mcminty wrote:
Be wary Kerry. It's a long and expensive downhill from here..
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Both of my L series lenses are more than the camera body.Kmarion wrote:
I learned that when I bought my first lens. It was almost as much as my camera .mcminty wrote:
Be wary Kerry. It's a long and expensive downhill from here..
Isn't the L series phased out now?
Edit.. nm.
As of 2007, Canon has not produced any L-series EF-S mount lenses, though the EF-S 17-55mm and EF-S 10-22mm both contain the same high-quality glass elements used in L-series lenses and have comparable image quality to some L-series lenses.[citation needed] Some regard the decision to not designate these lenses as L-series and build the body to L standards a marketing decision.
According to wiki at least.
Edit.. nm.
As of 2007, Canon has not produced any L-series EF-S mount lenses, though the EF-S 17-55mm and EF-S 10-22mm both contain the same high-quality glass elements used in L-series lenses and have comparable image quality to some L-series lenses.[citation needed] Some regard the decision to not designate these lenses as L-series and build the body to L standards a marketing decision.
According to wiki at least.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
God no. It's Canon's professional line of lenses. The amount of money they make with L-series lenses is phenomenal. If it were to be phased out, almost all of Canon's professional photographers would jump ship to Nikon.
EDIT:
The EF-S Lenses haven't been designated as L-series due to the fact that they are not designed for full frame sensors. And that they also lack the same L-series type construction and ruggedness.
EDIT:
The EF-S Lenses haven't been designated as L-series due to the fact that they are not designed for full frame sensors. And that they also lack the same L-series type construction and ruggedness.
I see. Big difference?mcminty wrote:
The EF-S Lenses haven't been designated as L-series due to the fact that they are not designed for full frame sensors. And that they also lack the same L-series type construction and ruggedness.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
About the full frame thing, or the lens construction?
Construction and image quality.mcminty wrote:
About the full frame thing, or the lens construction?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Ill explain it later (tomorrow). I'm going out.. and I'm running late. Shall post later (probs in the drunk thread )
k.. have fun.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Xbone Stormsurgezz
lol, for that price you get an EOS 40D camera body over here D:Kmarion wrote:
This I had to share .
http://i40.tinypic.com/2cdakaq.jpg
Holy hell
http://www.prophotonation.com/DIGITAL-S … -p361.html
Last edited by Jenspm (2009-01-31 01:02:53)
There is something screwy going on there. The packages, which include the camera in there list, are cheaper than the cameras by themselves.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
LOLSCAMKmarion wrote:
There is something screwy going on there. The packages, which include the camera in there list, are cheaper than the cameras by themselves.
Woah caps lock is on.. (yes I'm rather drunk )
The RRP of a 1Ds3 is.. $11,999 (australian dollars). Canon don't make a 17-70 f/2.8 lens, or 70-300 "macro" lens.scam wrote:
PACKAGE INCLUDES:
CANON EOS 1DS MARK III
17-70 2.8 LENSE
70-300 4.0 MACRO LENSE
10 GIG MEMORY CARD
CARD READER
PRO TRIPOD
PRO LENSE CLEANING KIT
LCD SCREEN PROTECTOR
SOFT CASE
MONOPOD
CAMERA FLASH
HARD CASE
WRIST STRAP
LENSE POUCH
CAP KEEPER
BATTERY GRIP
This scam is quite pathetic.
Yes please.mcminty wrote:
If anyone has any questions on technique, or questions about Canon gear (cause thats what I use), feel free to ask away!
If I'm trying to take a picture of something and the sun is shining straight at me (example, taking a picture of a mountain, and the sun is right above it), what do I do?
I'm a complete amateur at this, never really changed any settings when taking pictures other than the standard "night time" and "movement" settings.
And I'm using a pretty good Sony Cybershot Karl Zeiss something or another non-SLR camera.
Learn your levels in Photoshop. .. or go into lab mode (protect your colors) and use the highlights/shadows adjustment in advanced mode. mcminty can probably help you out without doing it post processing though.Jenspm wrote:
Yes please.mcminty wrote:
If anyone has any questions on technique, or questions about Canon gear (cause thats what I use), feel free to ask away!
If I'm trying to take a picture of something and the sun is shining straight at me (example, taking a picture of a mountain, and the sun is right above it), what do I do?
I'm a complete amateur at this, never really changed any settings when taking pictures other than the standard "night time" and "movement" settings.
And I'm using a pretty good Sony Cybershot Karl Zeiss something or another non-SLR camera.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
yeah, I was thinking more adjusting camera settings, but thanks - I'll try thatKmarion wrote:
Learn your levels in Photoshop. .. or go into lab mode (protect your colors) and use the highlights/shadows adjustment in advanced mode. mcminty can probably help you out without doing it post processing though.Jenspm wrote:
Yes please.mcminty wrote:
If anyone has any questions on technique, or questions about Canon gear (cause thats what I use), feel free to ask away!
If I'm trying to take a picture of something and the sun is shining straight at me (example, taking a picture of a mountain, and the sun is right above it), what do I do?
I'm a complete amateur at this, never really changed any settings when taking pictures other than the standard "night time" and "movement" settings.
And I'm using a pretty good Sony Cybershot Karl Zeiss something or another non-SLR camera.
Sorry for taking so long to reply. Got rather hammered last night, went to the beach today and then basically straight to soccer this evening.
Ok, so the main problem in taking this kind of photo is the difference in brightness between the sun and the object you are photographing. The difference in brightness is too large for the camera (even DSLRs and larger medium format digital camera backs) to capture detail in both the shadows1 and the highlights2. This means that you'll either get very dark/black shadows OR blown out highlights (highlights "beyond" white).
The Photoshop approach
Kerry mentioned learning levels in photoshop (tbh, the Curves tool is like levels, but a LOT more powerful). If you do this, you'll need to know that you can not recover blown out highlights. For example, if you blow out the sky, you can't use levels to darken and bring back colour to the sky. Once a highlight is blown out, it looses all colour value. For good.
But, you CAN get detail back from dark shadow areas, as long as they are not too close to pure black. The only side effect of this is that you increase the noise (graininess) of the shadow areas. Obviously, the more you push it, the worse the noise is.
The Exposure approach
While manipulating the image in photoshop to get both detail in the foreground and background.. they will often result in unnatural looking images. A better idea would be to make an artistic decision as to what you want correctly exposed in the photo, expose for that and then leave the rest how it comes.
An example:
If you want to capture details in the shadow part of an image where the sun is in the frame, you'll pretty much always have to underexpose what the auto-exposure meter tells you. This way you retain details in the highlights of the image. You'll then need to use an image editing program to recover the details in the shadow areas of the image (to a certain extent).
The other way is to decide what needs to be correctly exposed, expose for that and let the rest of the photo fall into place. If you choose the sky as the most important part, the foreground will usually end up as a silhouette.
Note that there are more DSLR specific ways of doing what you are asking.. not limited to multiple exposures and digital blending, fill flash or off camera flash, and graduated neutral density filters...
Notes:
1. The shadows in this case are any detail on the objects between the sun and you. Since the sun is behind the object, anything your camera sees is in the shadow side.
2. In this case, the sun and sky..
Ok, so the main problem in taking this kind of photo is the difference in brightness between the sun and the object you are photographing. The difference in brightness is too large for the camera (even DSLRs and larger medium format digital camera backs) to capture detail in both the shadows1 and the highlights2. This means that you'll either get very dark/black shadows OR blown out highlights (highlights "beyond" white).
The Photoshop approach
Kerry mentioned learning levels in photoshop (tbh, the Curves tool is like levels, but a LOT more powerful). If you do this, you'll need to know that you can not recover blown out highlights. For example, if you blow out the sky, you can't use levels to darken and bring back colour to the sky. Once a highlight is blown out, it looses all colour value. For good.
But, you CAN get detail back from dark shadow areas, as long as they are not too close to pure black. The only side effect of this is that you increase the noise (graininess) of the shadow areas. Obviously, the more you push it, the worse the noise is.
The Exposure approach
While manipulating the image in photoshop to get both detail in the foreground and background.. they will often result in unnatural looking images. A better idea would be to make an artistic decision as to what you want correctly exposed in the photo, expose for that and then leave the rest how it comes.
An example:
Long story short...First off, I took this with an old point and shoot while on a 62km 5 day hike. It was sunset on the first night, and everyone had stopped to take photos. Most people were just using their cameras on automatic mode, where the camera chooses the exposure (aperture and shutterspeed) for them. Their camera's would try to expose for the foreground. As a result, the sky would look WAY too bright and the photo would be ruined (maybe what is happening to you).
TO fix this problem, I set the camera to manual mode and put in my own aperture and shutter speed values. From the artistic point of view the colours in the sky were much more interesting than the valley in the foreground. So, I set my exposure to capture the detail in the sky/sun.
The sky was actually slightly darker than the photo shows, but I decided to overexpose the image slightly to get some more detail in the foreground. The lighter colours as the different parts of the valley progress to the background of the frame give the photo a 3D quality, a bit of depth. It makes for a much more interesting photo.
Another point to note when taking photos with the sun, especially around sunset - Set the White Balance on your camera to "daylight". If you let the camera decide, it will try to make the golden sunlight "white", thus washing out the colour from the sunset shot. I can post an example of the same shot with different white balance if anyone wants.
If you want to capture details in the shadow part of an image where the sun is in the frame, you'll pretty much always have to underexpose what the auto-exposure meter tells you. This way you retain details in the highlights of the image. You'll then need to use an image editing program to recover the details in the shadow areas of the image (to a certain extent).
The other way is to decide what needs to be correctly exposed, expose for that and let the rest of the photo fall into place. If you choose the sky as the most important part, the foreground will usually end up as a silhouette.
Note that there are more DSLR specific ways of doing what you are asking.. not limited to multiple exposures and digital blending, fill flash or off camera flash, and graduated neutral density filters...
Notes:
1. The shadows in this case are any detail on the objects between the sun and you. Since the sun is behind the object, anything your camera sees is in the shadow side.
2. In this case, the sun and sky..
You guys take some nice shots
Jenspm, the karma you gave me had an important point!
With this kind of thing, it will take quite a bit of experimentation to be able to get pretty close to the exposure you want first time. But, for all of you who sport point and shoot cameras, there should be a slight advantage. When composing your shot, as you change the values of the aperture and shutter speed, the live preview image on the back LCD screen should get lighter/darker depending on what you do. Just change the values to get your desired effect and you are done.
Don't be afraid to experiment. God, I've got probs more than 10,000-15,000 photos no one will ever see.. cause they were all "failed" shots. But hey, I learnt something from every shot.
EDIT: I saw an ad for the 40D in a photography magazine that would have been appropriate for once you have practiced enough. It was a photo of a sunset, with a caption like "Watching the sunset with the woman I love, I think to myself.. f/8 at 1/250th"
With this kind of thing, it will take quite a bit of experimentation to be able to get pretty close to the exposure you want first time. But, for all of you who sport point and shoot cameras, there should be a slight advantage. When composing your shot, as you change the values of the aperture and shutter speed, the live preview image on the back LCD screen should get lighter/darker depending on what you do. Just change the values to get your desired effect and you are done.
Don't be afraid to experiment. God, I've got probs more than 10,000-15,000 photos no one will ever see.. cause they were all "failed" shots. But hey, I learnt something from every shot.
EDIT: I saw an ad for the 40D in a photography magazine that would have been appropriate for once you have practiced enough. It was a photo of a sunset, with a caption like "Watching the sunset with the woman I love, I think to myself.. f/8 at 1/250th"