TVCH FORUMS HOME . JOIN . FAN CLUBS . DONATE . CONTACT . CHAT  
                  Quick Links   TOPICS . TREE-VIEW . SEARCH . HELP! . NEWS . PROFILE
Archive through December 23, 2008

Reality TVClubHouse Discussions: General Discussions ARCHIVES: Jan ~ Apr 2009: All Things Technical: The Help Desk: Digital Camera/Photography Help (ARCHIVES): Archive through December 23, 2008 users admin

Author Message
Eeyoreslament
Member

07-20-2003

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 12:36 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Eeyoreslament a private message Print Post    
As for lenses, the one thing I've learned, is that the kit lenses are never what you want. My two kit lenses are in the back of my closet. I never use them. I spent another 1000 on the two lenses that I DO carry, and I intend to spend another 500 on another wide angle.

Everything you read about the kit lenses being NOT what you want, are pretty accurate.

Jimmer
Moderator

08-30-2000

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 1:46 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jimmer a private message Print Post    
Sorry Eeyore but there simply must be something wrong with it or Nikon has produced a very bad camera (which I doubt) or you're doing something wrong with it. Granted it isn't their top pro body but there is no way it should hunt and hesitate like that especially if you have a fast lens on it.

Have you tried using the center point focus on it and then recomposing?

P & S cameras were notorious for shutter lag, slow focusing and inability to lock focus. They have improved but IMO there is still a significant difference. LOL - You don't see pros shooting sports events with a P & S. One reason is poor focussing and the other is the lens isn't fast enough.

By the way, most P & S film cameras were equally bad or worse but because hardly anyone ever printed larger than 4 x 6 no one could tell anyway.

Eeyoreslament
Member

07-20-2003

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 3:37 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Eeyoreslament a private message Print Post    
My problem is that I haven't been very scientific about my trouble shooting. Sure, I've tried all of those things, but never in the same situation, never with the same lens, etc. I DO tend to move my focus points a lot, and have often noticed focus problems because my dot wasn't in the right place. LOL

I'm not saying it NEVER focuses and shoots at parties, but I have had many a time where I've lost a shot due to the camera refusing to take.

One of my main peeves is that my nifty fifty is really a 75mm with my crop factor, and while it's a nice fast lens, it's hard to take to a party or bar, and get far enough away to get a group shot. Not like 25 people, but you do have to back up at least 10 feet, to get 3 people in a shot. And once there's a 10 foot space between you and the subject, there are people usually walking through your shot. LOL

I'm looking to get a fast wide angle to use at parties, so that I can still be close to my subjects and get the shot.

Jimmer
Moderator

08-30-2000

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 7:29 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jimmer a private message Print Post    
I agree that the crop factor is a pain. It's bad enough trying to shoot wide angles with landscapes but trying to shoot inside is a problem as well unless you have a reasonably wide angle lens. One of my favorite lenses is my 70-200 but it is very hard to shoot inside with it unless the person has a big house with a lot of space. LOL – You can only back up so far before you hit a wall. In a bar, people walk in front of you. Plus you look conspicuous with a big lens. A nice fast fixed length wide angle would make for a nice small carry around lens for party situations. I've thought about getting one myself for that purpose.

I'm still surprised at your focusing problems especially with your good lenses. You might want to try the center point and focus and recompose. Theoretically you should be able to use all the focus points and let the camera decide but that never works as well with the non-pro bodies. The center point should work well for you though.

Eeyoreslament
Member

07-20-2003

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 8:54 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Eeyoreslament a private message Print Post    
Oh, I wasn't clear about my non-use of center spots. I was trying to say that I often will use an off-center spot, but then in my next composition, I'll forget that it's on upper-right focus, and I'll be expecting it to focus on center. I do that quite often. To a point where I should put it into my pre-shot cadence. You know, what things you say to yourself before every shot (whether conscious or unconscious).

So I think a possible problem WRT to the camera's focusing finickiness may be that. Again, it hasn't happened at hundreds of parties (I usually prefer to take a P&S), but it's happened enough that I've noticed it, but usually the party and socializing takes precedence over fiddling with my camera. It's hard to really have the courage to just take a big SLR out somewhere dark/party-ish, just to practice low-light shots, but yet when you're out at a party you DO care about attending, the last thing you feel like spending time on, is figuring out why your camera isn't cooperating (nobody else around you wants to spend time on that either).

I do have to spend a bit more time shooting. I'm not very comfortable bringing a camera out, and people around never like the big camera either. But it's hard, because I enjoy friends and social gatherings, and that is what I enjoy shooting. :-(

Kookliebird
Member

08-04-2005

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 10:11 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Kookliebird a private message Print Post    
Eeyore, I agree that it is difficult to bring a big camera out in social gatherings. I normally stick with my P&S unless it's like a weekend thing and more people will be bringing their DSLR cameras. My friends tend to give me grief whenever they see the big camera.

I have the same issue on the focus points on the camera. Mine has 9. I have finally gotten used to pressing the focus button prior to shooting. That works great with scenics, which I mostly shoot. But, in a social gathering, I would probably just leave it on the center one and put the aperature at about 5.6 - 7 to broaden the range of focus in the photograph. In the end, it's all just a guessing game for me.

Julieboo
Member

02-05-2002

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 12:38 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Julieboo a private message Print Post    
Hmmm, so this focus points stuff sounds like a bit of a nuisance. Is manually focusing on something a thing of the past? I mean when I had my SLR, I could focus on whatever I wished with turning the ring on my lens. It also had a circle with a line thru the middle that would help you determine if something was in focus or not.

Eeyoreslament
Member

07-20-2003

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 3:01 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Eeyoreslament a private message Print Post    
It's hard to manually focus for ME, because I am far sighted (beyond the diopeter range on the eyepiece), and looking through that tiny eyepiece, and trying to see what's sharp in a dark room....well.....it's hard. (I really should get contacts)

The focus ring still works, and you can switch the body to focus in either manual or auto, depending on what you prefer. Lots of people prefer manual focus.

Me personally, I'm always trying to put people off center. The rule of thirds and all....which is why my focus dots are always off...

I have a D80. I think it has 11 points.

Eeyoreslament
Member

07-20-2003

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 3:06 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Eeyoreslament a private message Print Post    
Speaking of the diopter, and my bad eyesight... I really want to sell my D80 body, and get a D90, because I want that live view LCD screen. People scorn the LCD screen, but when you have trouble focusing on tiny things up close, then the little bitty viewfinder it NOT as helpful as a live LCD.

On my P&S, I like the viewfinder for really dark times where the LCD doesn't show much, but I prefer the LCD for composing my shots for the most part. I wouldn't buy a camera WITHOUT a viewfinder though (which is becoming a common offering).


My friend has the G10, and I find it interesting that whenever you adjust something on the manual controls, the LCD will show you how the picture will turn out. Nice little feature.

Jimmer
Moderator

08-30-2000

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 3:10 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jimmer a private message Print Post    
Manual focusing is pretty much a thing of the past because most SLRs no longer have the type of focusing screen that Julieboo described (though you can get it on the pro ones if you want). Most people don't bother because the auto focusing is very fast and usually pretty accurate if you know what you're doing (and that is not a dig at Eeyore who I think knows more about photography than most people).

One of the differences between an SLR and a P & S is the SLR shows you the focus points through the viewfinder and the ones that are being used for focusing light up so you can see what the camera is focusing on. You can either choose the focus point you want the camera to use or you can let the camera select it automatically.

------------------------

There is definitely an unfair stigma attached to using a "big" SLR. People can be really intimidated and you are fairly conspicuous. Security will often not allow an SLR at sporting events and concerts whereas you can sometimes get away with a P & S. Of course, that is partly because you can get vastly superior pictures with a good lens on an SLR.

What makes much less sense is that security sometimes approaches people photographing buildings and bridges and other things like that with SLRs (part of the 911 fears) but ignores people with P & S cameras. Of course, that doesn't make sense. A terrorist wouldn't be interested in an aesthetically beautiful picture of a bridge and wouldn't be likely to use an SLR.

If you are interested you can read the following guide to Photographer's Rights. It is quite interesting what you are allowed to photograph in the United States.

The Photographer’s Right

As far as photographing at parties or doing "candid street photography", many people prefer less conspicuous cameras which is a somewhat more "sneaky" approach. However, you can certainly do it with an SLR and it is just a matter of confidence and personally feeling confident that you aren't doing anything wrong (which you aren't) and getting your subjects used to seeing you so they are comfortable with you. Don't be sneaky. Be conspicuous and eventually they may forget about you even if you are right there in front of them.

Jimmer
Moderator

08-30-2000

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 3:34 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jimmer a private message Print Post    
The live LCD is a nice feature but I think it is harder to hold a camera steady when composing with the LCD as you have to hold the camera out in front of you. If you put a big lens on it (and it gets heavy) that could be a problem. Might be nice for macro stuff though.

Eeyoreslament
Member

07-20-2003

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 11:56 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Eeyoreslament a private message Print Post    
Very true about the way you hold a cam, and the LCD. I really should get contacts.



Interesting story about street photography and candid shots....my teacher told it in my Beginner's Digital class. She was saying a student of hers came back from India, and was showing a bunch of pics, but every pic they took was a candid shot, never seeking the subject's permission to be photographed. She contrasted it with a set of shots her husband took while in India, where he got people's permission, offered stuff to have people cooperate. She said the pictures were often of the same landmarks, but there was a creepy feel to the pics that were taken candidly; like we shouldn't be looking at these people without permission. It had a voyeuristic feel. Whereas her husband's pics were of people in those same landmarks, but there was eye contact, and the pictures had a way different feeling.

It made sense to me. While I'm all for the candid shot of your best buddy praying to the porcelain gods or something, I definitely won't take candid shots of people anymore, or at least not a large portion of my shots. My shot of the man in the airport was not with his permission, but the whole feel of the shot was to give off the aura of solitude. If there was eye contact, or some sort of feeling that we had a relationship, it would take from the solitude feeling of the shot.

In any case, I thought of that just because we were talking about candids.

Jimmer
Moderator

08-30-2000

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 8:44 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jimmer a private message Print Post    
I agree in that I'm not a fan of certain types of candid photography where the person taking the pictures is kind of sneaking around. Usually for me to want to take a picture, the person has to be doing something interesting or be unique in some way. I usually chat with them a bit about what they are doing or their interests (or my interests) ask permission to take some casual pictures, hang around for a bit so they lose any tension about being photographed and then take the picture. Or wave to them, smile and show the camera and if they're agreeable, take a picture of them looking and smiling and then wait around and take a few more candid pictures once they go back to what they are doing and forget about the camera.

Some people think that you can't get natural looking pictures if the people know you are taking the picture. However, I find it much more comfortable if the people know you are taking pictures but are comfortable enough to relax and just continue doing what they are doing.

Eeyoreslament
Member

07-20-2003

Monday, December 22, 2008 - 3:41 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Eeyoreslament a private message Print Post    
Hey Jimmer, I have a question about setting white balance manually. When you do it with a white or medium grey card, are you supposed to fill the frame with it, or just have it in the scene, then adjust it in post?

I've seen a few articles (LINK 1, LINK 2) the past week or two, that have talked about white balance, and both seem to show a "test shot" where their little "grey kard" is in a shot, only taking up about 5% of the frame. Then they deal with adjustments in the post processing.

In the past, I've had trouble setting WB manually, where you have a combo of lighting (natural light from a window and a tungsten lamp, or, both tungsten and LED lighting). I usually take a card, and fill my frame with it. Sometimes it takes, sometimes I get the "no good" and I have to try again.

Have I been doing it wrong the whole time? Are you not supposed to fill the frame? And....if you're not supposed to fill the frame, then how does the camera know to look at the grey/white card at the key to color temp, rather than the stuff in the rest of the frame?

Jimmer
Moderator

08-30-2000

Monday, December 22, 2008 - 6:06 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jimmer a private message Print Post    
It depends on whether or not you want to manually set the white balance with the camera or if you want to set the white balance after the fact during raw processing.

If you are shooting jpg then you would fill the frame with the card and then use that frame to set the white balance in camera and then use that white balance setting for subsequent shots. However, if you are shooting raw, then you can just use the card as a part of one frame and use the eyedropper to set the white balance in the raw processing step for that shot and all the rest of the shots that you took in the same lighting.

Do you know what I mean by all that stuff?

Of course, keep in mind that "accurate" white balance is not necessarily the most visually and artistically appealing white balance.

I'll never forget attending a session at a top level photo processing lab. The owner told us that the white balance has to "look good" so the client is happy. LOL at the time I thought he was being stupid but I have come to realize that that is all that is really important and he really knew what he was talking about (not surprisingly).

Eeyoreslament
Member

07-20-2003

Monday, December 22, 2008 - 7:34 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Eeyoreslament a private message Print Post    
Hmmm.....I wonder if the "frame fill" thing was finicky because I only shoot raw.

It's too bad that, for all the in-camera processing the cameras are capable of doing, you couldn't do a similar eye dropper thing within the camera. Take a test shot, then move two lines on horizontal/vertical axes, to have them intersect at a pixel that "should" be white. From there, the camera sets white balance.

I know, cameras are becoming too heavy with features, but it's just a thought. LOL


I definitely know about using color temp for mood. Like, the green drabness of fluorescent lighting in an office situation, or the warmth of candles etc. I find I just end up in places where there is combined lighting a lot. I was doing an assignment the other day, and was using natural light by a window, but as the sun was going down, someone turned on tungsten lighting. :-( I was somewhere where I couldn't ask them to turn them off....

I didn't know until this week that you could use the eyedropper as an ongoing custom white balance in post processing programs. It's a good thing to know, as I struggle with doing custom white balance.

Jimmer
Moderator

08-30-2000

Monday, December 22, 2008 - 8:50 pm   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jimmer a private message Print Post    
Of course you don't have to worry about white balance when you are shooting raw. I always try to get it close but you can always adjust it just as well later on.

Julieboo
Member

02-05-2002

Tuesday, December 23, 2008 - 7:53 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Julieboo a private message Print Post    
Jimmer, Eeyore, Kooklie, (or whomever might have an opinion), what should I look for in a tripod? Mainly want it for indoor use when I do not want to use a flash.

Brenda1966
Member

07-03-2002

Tuesday, December 23, 2008 - 8:33 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Brenda1966 a private message Print Post    
Pst... Eeyore... are you going to come back and finish your Chicago story sometime?! I'm dying to hear the rest!

Jimmer
Moderator

08-30-2000

Tuesday, December 23, 2008 - 8:34 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jimmer a private message Print Post    
There is a huge price range for tripods. Generally speaking the more that you pay for a tripod, the sturdier it will be and the more weight it will hold steady, without being heavy to carry around itself. So it depends on how much you will be carrying it around, how significant the weight is to you and how heavy a camera/lens you want to put on it.

Then you have a choice between different heads (where you attach the camera). You can get a ball head that swivels in all directions or a panning head that lets you pan up and down or across. Less expensive tripods include the head.

Then you have to decide if you want a quick release system where the mechanism stays attached to the camera and it is easy to put the camera on and off the tripod.

So the price ranges from incredibly cheap to incredibly expensive (probably a lot more than you paid for your camera)!

You probably want something nice and sturdy, not too cheap but not too pricey either. The nice thing though about tripods is if you get a good one, it lasts forever.

(At the risk of repeating myself though, the absolute best thing you can do to improve your indoor pictures is buy an external flash, put it on the camera hotshoe and bounce it off of the ceiling or nearby wall)

Julieboo
Member

02-05-2002

Tuesday, December 23, 2008 - 8:45 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Julieboo a private message Print Post    
I get how the flash bounces off a ceiling, but how does it bounce off a nearby wall?

(not scientifically, but in terms of how you want the light to hit the subject)

Julieboo
Member

02-05-2002

Tuesday, December 23, 2008 - 8:54 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Julieboo a private message Print Post    
Oh, and while I have your attention, can you tell me the features in a flash (besides the bounce) that I should look for. (Most of my photos are people. Especially little, ansty, impatient, mobile ones!

Julieboo
Member

02-05-2002

Tuesday, December 23, 2008 - 9:22 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Julieboo a private message Print Post    
What about Canon Speedlite 430EX or 430 EXII??? (And are there any good "generics" for those???)

Jimmer
Moderator

08-30-2000

Tuesday, December 23, 2008 - 10:38 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Jimmer a private message Print Post    
Get one of those Canon flashes. They're expensive but will work well with your camera and be much less of a hassle. Just make sure it has a swivel head. Plus if you ever decide to get a Canon SLR it will work great with it as well.

Basically you bounce the light to diffuse it and also so it comes more from above (which is where natural light comes from) or the side and not directly off the camera at the subject. It reduces the harsh shadows, eliminates red eye and gets rid of the "deer in the headlights" look. Your indoor pictures will look much less flat and much more three-dimensional. It will make a big difference.

By the way, never attach an older style flash to your camera. You could zap the camera with it.

Julieboo
Member

02-05-2002

Tuesday, December 23, 2008 - 10:54 am   Edit Post Move Post Delete Post View Post Send Julieboo a private message Print Post    
Many thanks Jimmer!!