Dave Learns How to Take Photos

[jcardona1]

It's not really a profession for me, still just a hobby. I don't think I'll ever make it a profession. Maybe do a few portraits on the side and that's it. I just add that watermark on all my photos to avoid stuff having stolen A lot of these photos are fairly recent, as I've been slowly getting more and more serious with the photography hobby. Maybe one day I can make some money to help fund the purchase of more equipment!

As for the aperture, yeah, big, fast, wide, it's all the same really. The reason it's called "faster" is because is a bid/wide aperture lets in more light, which in turn lets you choose a faster shutter speed. Whereas a kit lens would have a smaller aperture, giving you less light, and therefore requiring a slower shutter speed.

Here's a nice chart those shows common aperture sizes, and how they translate into the light that comes through the lens:

And this chart shows hows aperture affects the depth of field (how much of the scene is in focus)

 

[jcardona1]

Oh. Here's a question. In that waterfall pic (where the lack of focus is really not that obvious to the layperson, or at least it's not on this screen at this size), would getting them in more focus with more optimal light affect the waterfall at all? I assume it's far enough away so as not to be affected by the actual light, but if more light = more optimal aperture for your photo of the people, would that aperture change also change how the falls appear? Cause I kind of like how they look with that aperture. Of course, I don't know what you were going for with that as well as you do.

Sometimes I think a lot of the differences you point out, which are obvious to another pro or to anyone you explain it to here, get overlooked by consumers. So a photographer with lesser equipment and skill but a knack for getting great smiles and candid shots can still do well with portraiture and whatnot because most people are mostly concerned with composition and themselves. Even though I'm trying to get into this stuff, I still don't notice some of the details you explain without being told. And I'm looking a lot more critically than a person might. This explains the difference between your opinion and your mother in law's about that one shot.

That's not really relevant to anything; just an observation about what could possibly be unfair in the soliciting of business. My uncle, for instance, is surely as skilled as they come (he's over 60 and has done it his whole adult life). But I know he has people who absolutely hate his style. We ended up with a local guy for my own wedding who isn't even half his age, but had a real knack for getting great candid shots. Who knows if he's actually any good in the eyes of another photographer, though.

Aperture and depth of field is a tricky topic. There's A LOT of science behind. In a nutshell, the depth of field is determined by the aperture, sensor size of the camera, focal lenght of the lens, and subject distance. Here's a great website that goes into a lot more details and has an actual DOF calculator: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

As for that waterfall pic, the only thing I could have done to have us in complete focus was to use a smaller aperture. And now I remember, I didn't have my speedlight with me, so I was wrong in what I posted earlier. I was shooting in available light only. Therefore, I had to compromise. I had to use a fast enough shutter speed that would avoid any motion blur, and I didn't want to go to high on the ISO.

This pic was at 1/20th, f/3.2 and ISO 200. Now that I look back, I should have gone up to ISO 800, and then used a bigger aperture like f/6 or so. That would have made sure we were all sharp. It was just a screw-up on my part. My aperture was big and my shutter speed slow because my ISO was so low. Increasing the ISO would have given me more room to play with the aperture.

Here's the link for the fullsize pic so you could see the difference in focus: http://www.flickr.com/photos/18984651@N05/5187040943/in/set-72157625272540151/

And here's the same shot, but just the waterfall only. This was at f/13 so much more of the scene was in focus, but it was at a 1 second shutter speed. That is waaay too slow of a shutter speed to use for people pics, they will come out blurry no matter what:

As for photography, it's purely an art. Some will love your work, some won't. For weddings, I personally love the photography that do the documentary-style shooting and have nothing but candid shots. That is how you get the real expressions out of people. Having everybody line up for a group portrait doesn't always give the best look, no matter how skilled you are

 

[jcardona1]

I know you don't use Macs, so this is a question for someone else: what's your process for creating macros (ie, how you organize your folders and save settings) in Photoshop? I have CS4 and I wonder if I've got some file system issues or if I just recorded it wrong... I just made a simple Web Save (resize, compress for web, save copy) that I'd love to have for everything, just for posting pics quickly to websites without having to edit them individually... but after the initial use, it stopped working... just threw errors at me (and still insisted on opening every single one and making me sit through it, resulting in a force quit to get my computer back). This camera will save a RAW + JPG which is pretty cool, but the jpg is still at 18mp and I'd rather save a full size RAW and like an 800x600-ish jpg. (Actually, I need to experiment to see if CS4 will open the Canon raw file format or if I'm forced to use their software first. That'd annoy me.)

I also shoot in RAW + JPG. Since my computer is a dinosaur, I can quickly scan the jpg files and see which ones I want to keep and edit, and which I can discard. Then I'll open up the 'keepers' in CS4's 'Camera RAW' editor to work on the raw files. After that, I'll save as a jpg and get rid of the raw files, unless I want to keep them for future edits. My camera is 12mp, so the raw files are about 10mb, and the final jpeg that comes out of a raw file is 1-2mb, very manageable.

But I recommend getting a Flickr account. It maintains the best image quality out of any photo hosting site. Flickr is the photographer's play ground

I don't even upload photos to MFK anymore. Just upload my work to Flickr once, then I can copy/paste to multiple forums. And if you get a Pro account ($25/yr), it will even have the huge original file size. So I can choose what size to copy/paste. It really is a great tool.

But that really didn't answer your question lol

 

[AquaCrazy]

Sweet pics!!

 

[joecoulson]

I will add one thing to Jcardona's comments, as far as pro lenses go, the wider aperture is half of the cost in pro lenses, the other half is the quality of components used specifically the glass. Now when a lens (like a kit lens) is stopped down (meaning the aperture is a higher number/smaller hole) the majority of consumer lenses perform pretty well. I would say at F8 most all lenses perform pretty darn well. When you go down one stop many lenses start to show flaws in the edges and more specifically the Bokeh (which is how the out of focus areas look, like the waterfall in his shot above) I pay money for my glass for not only the clarity at ALL apertures (because for photography as a profession, the lenses need to perform flawlessly in any situation I throw at them) but the way the bokeh looks. Nothing worse for a portrait than hexagon shapes behind your portrait. Now although I have shot weddings, portraits and commercial photography for over 20 years, I have just recently started shooting my fish tanks (guess it's cause I have been busy shooting for a job and not really wanting to shoot when I get back home) There are some really great shots by some talented folks on this forum and the ones that really stand out have mastered the light coming into the tank by flash/strobe. I would look into a nice flash before upgrading your lens b/c light IS photography. Multiple light sources for portraits are very useful but I don't think necessary for aquarium photography. The only other thing I could add is that a tripod can do wonders for NON flash (and sometimes flash) photography. You would be surprsed how much shake you add to a shot even at shutter speeds of 60-250/s. Sorry to ramble, just adding my 2c.

 

[jcardona1]

I will add one thing to Jcardona's comments, as far as pro lenses go, the wider aperture is half of the cost in pro lenses, the other half is the quality of components used specifically the glass. Now when a lens (like a kit lens) is stopped down (meaning the aperture is a higher number/smaller hole) the majority of consumer lenses perform pretty well. I would say at F8 most all lenses perform pretty darn well. When you go down one stop many lenses start to show flaws in the edges and more specifically the Bokeh (which is how the out of focus areas look, like the waterfall in his shot above) I pay money for my glass for not only the clarity at ALL apertures (because for photography as a profession, the lenses need to perform flawlessly in any situation I throw at them) but the way the bokeh looks. Nothing worse for a portrait than hexagon shapes behind your portrait.

Yeah I here you! The build quality of the pro lenses is awesome! My two main lenses are the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8. I wouldn't trade them for anything. They give me amazing clarity and color rendition. But quality doesn't come cheap. The retail price for both of these lenses is about $3,600.

As for bokeh, good glass definitely does give you nice bokeh results. I like looking at Ken Rockwell's site for bokeh comparisons: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/bokeh-comparison.htm

 

[DaveB]

I have always suspected that even on a tripod a hand pressing a button could make things move a tiny bit, so a remote would be better. Is that a little too extreme (assuming a good tripod)?

So, in terms of lights, what is a good amount if I'm going to be mostly shooting things around my house for the forseeable future? (My house doesn't get tons of natural light - Chicago architecture wedges buildings close together - but it's not a total dungeon upstairs either) I can't imagine I need the highest end ones yet. But if the 270 is inadequate I don't want to waste time/money on it.

I actually have a Flikr account, and actually a close friend is one of the heads of their creative staff. Which makes me quite sad to say that relative to what I'm used to, I find the site difficult to navigate and use. Certain things are not intuitive to a semi-new user. We don't talk often enough any more for me to bring that up though, especially now that he has about 10 more years of experience and success in that field (while I drifted over to programming).


BTW, speaking of difficult to use, this place is over-moderated. Too much obsession with organization. Why on earth would a thread about photography be moved from the photography section? That doesn't make any sense at all. I've never visited the lounge in the nearly 3 years I've been coming here. I'm sure I'm not unique in that regard either. This thread is going to be documenting my progress, mostly through aquarium photography... how is that not "Photo Lounge" material?

 

[jcardona1]

A good tripod is definitely a good investment. In general, I try not to shoot below 1/30th handheld. Even then, sometimes you get a tiny bit of blur. I have a generic infrared remote I got on amazon for $5 shipped, works great! I use it all the time, comes in handy for group pics so I don't have to set the timer and run back each time.

I just got this tripod for christmas. My dinky little setup on the right would nearly tip over with my heavy camera. This new tripod is a tank, and weighs like 5lbs! It's the Vanguard 263 Alta Pro tripod and Vanguard SBH-300 ballhead. The whole setup is about $250.



I feel you about the moderation. My non-fish pics get moved to the lounge everytime. To put photography in the same section where kids talk about pokemon and cartoons make no sense to me

I'd say start off with one good Canon speedlight, and go from there. I wouldnt go out and buy 2-3 lights all at once. Rather experiement with it, and determine if it's good enough for your needs. I have two right now, and would like to add another 1-2. But I think I'm heading more in the direction of studio lighting, so I'm looking at these beasts right here, but I still don't know much about how they work! http://alienbees.com/b800.html

 

[joecoulson]

J, you should get Hensel's, I love mine.

 

[jcardona1]

J, you should get Hensel's, I love mine.

How do the prices compare to AB? I'll be honest, this type of lighting is all new to me, so I'm still learning. But I do see Alienbees used a lot. Are ABs more popular? And is it because of price?