[vividified]

^ i shoot in (raw + jpeg) generally

[<3 Kim]

I just shot with another model today. Just a few pics I took at the start, there were some better ones I took towards the end but haven't had time to edit them yet

[[HyuNi]]

Hi everyone, I need some help with some post processing tips. So the photo that I'm going to show was taken at around 7:30pm, there was still light with the sunset, but not lit well enough to have a good picture (1/125 f/1.8 ISO 100). When I post processed it in Lightroom, I bumped up the exposure and brightness just a little bit. Now for every picture that I do this to, certain things become grainy, I need tips on how to correct this.
http://i988.photobucket.com/albums/af2/bmy...ei/IMG_6733.jpg

The part that I am talking about is on her red dress. Thanks for any help!

I would say the underlying issue is that the photo was not exposed correctly.
The thing that would resolve this issue is to use a different meter mode.
For outdoor shots of people, I usually use spot metering (check your manual). That means, the camera will determine that the subject that is in focus (in your case, the two couples) is the subject you want to be exposed correctly. If I had to guess, you were probably on the default "Centerweighted Averaged Metering" mode. That mode probably accounted that the sky was still relatively bright, which made your subject very dark.

You should be able to get a more properly exposed photo after that, and when you tweak it in lightroom, you won't have to change the photo drastically.

Hey everyone! I've lurked in this thread for the last... 3 days. The first time I went into this thread was when I was looking for a nice point&shoot for my photography class, and I didn't understand a word. Now that I've gotten used to my camera (I've had it for a few weeks now) I understand a lot of the things that are going on.

After a couple months of research and playing with my friend's Canon Rebel XT a couple months back, I purchased a Canon XSi from Best Buy. It came with a bundle for the starter kit and an 8gig memory card so I was pretty happy. I'm looking to learn how to post-process my photos better. Up until now, I've only played with Curves, Brightness/Contrast, and Levels. Basic things like fixing the exposure from my photos (Shot in jpeg, but after reading in this thread, I think I'm going to start shooting in RAW+jpeg). I want to join you guys because you seem like a friendly bunch I hope to learn a lot from you guys!

Here's a few of my favorite shots:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2605/378889..._591d6904a8.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2424/378819..._60c13bd679.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2486/378738..._151bc0af4b.jpg

And my Flickr, of course
http://www.flickr.com/photos/31317832@N05/

Add me!

Welcome! I've read your posts and you seem knowledgable about photography. I think it's great that you're answering questions for everyone! Don't be discouraged, photography is a very difficult and mysterious hobby for a lot of people... especially if they have no prior experience. I think it's great that people with more experience are willing to help others who need it.

Great photos, a bit overexposed for my tastes, but different people have different preferences.
I LOVE the last photo of the tree. You got a good eye.

Do you guys usually shoot in RAW or JPEG?

I used to shoot JPEG just because it was more convenient, but I switched to RAW because I have more flexibilty to change the photo, if it came out under/overexposed, or the white balance was out of whack, or other mistakes I made. I exclusively use RAW because it allows me to correct my mistakes!

[phantompc4]

I just shot with another model today. Just a few pics I took at the start, there were some better ones I took towards the end but haven't had time to edit them yet

1 and 2 the pictures are blown out. the washed out background is too distracting.

2 and 3, when taking portraits try not to cut off any parts of the body (head and arms in your pics). try to reposition her form.

3 while not so bad in the other pics, in this one her mole is distracting. my eye went right to it. maybe make it smaller? or just spot heal it to get rid of it completely. Also the blown out spot on the left side of her head is also distracting.

[VietChink]

Thanks [HyuNi]! I've read all 210 ages of this thread beforehand.. and I've studying hard . Google is a wonderful tool!

Yeah, most of my pictures are overexposed, and now that I think about it, I have never really noticed a problem. Maybe it is just my taste. But I'll be sure to properly expose my future photos, and see how they turn out.

What is a fast way to watermark photos?

[omegach]

What is a fast way to watermark photos?

i use lightroom to organize my photos, and there is a very convenient plug-in for easy, non-permanent watermarking

[VietChink]

^ Thanks! Just what I was looking for. Can someone explain to me the techniques such as focus & recompose and panning? What it is, when to use it, how to use it?

[ChromeHearts]

http://cgi.ebay.com/Tamron-AF10C-700-19-35...id=p3286.c0.m14

any thoughts on these lenses?
price and quality

[VietChink]

I've seen to have misplaced my body cap for my xsi and my rear lens cap for my 18-55 kit lens, is there a store I can go to to buy replacements? I live in Garden Grove, California. I found the caps on Adorama, but I don't want to wait for shipping. I'm scared that my camera and lenses are gonna be exposed

[dot1q]

I've seen to have misplaced my body cap for my xsi and my rear lens cap for my 18-55 kit lens, is there a store I can go to to buy replacements? I live in Garden Grove, California. I found the caps on Adorama, but I don't want to wait for shipping. I'm scared that my camera and lenses are gonna be exposed

I'm probably oversimplifying this but, why don't you just stick the lens back on the camera and don't take it off until you get your new caps?

Re: the model pic above. I generally agree about the overexposure and them being washed out. However, the 1st pic is sort of interesting as the light seems like it's radiating right behind her. Don't know if it was done intentionally, but its interesting and has a surreal sort of effect where the model pops out. But yes, if all you wanted was a glamour shot, then it doesn't hold up.

[VietChink]

Yeah, I can do that, and it won't expose the lens. The point of my asking was that I wanted to find a camera store near where I live for things like this. Only places I know are wholesale stores like Best Buy, and I'm trying to find a dedicated camera store for my needs. Any suggestions?

[albasian]

Yeah, I can do that, and it won't expose the lens. The point of my asking was that I wanted to find a camera store near where I live for things like this. Only places I know are wholesale stores like Best Buy, and I'm trying to find a dedicated camera store for my needs. Any suggestions?

Have you tried Ritz Camera, or something of that sort? Idk if that's wholesale, but I know it's dedicated to cameras.
If you really can't find anything, I'd just go to Best Buy or something and see what you can find.

Question: I know in the past few posts, people have been talking a lot about prime lenses (mainly 50mm).
I was wondering, which lens would be better for versatility in taking pictures? Meaning that I can should macro+landscapes+portraits without running into problems? Aka, a lens that you can leave on your camera when out and about and still take pictures without worrying?
The two primes I'm comparing are the 50mm and 35mm. <So it's between those two.
I have a D60, so the 35mm technically is 50mm, and the 50mm is technically a 75mm. (Or I think that's how it goes).

[VietChink]

I heard people don't like Ritz camera for some reason..

You're looking for a standard zoom, then. Or superzoom telephoto. It all depends on your budget.

[phantompc4]

Have you tried Ritz Camera, or something of that sort? Idk if that's wholesale, but I know it's dedicated to cameras.
If you really can't find anything, I'd just go to Best Buy or something and see what you can find.

Question: I know in the past few posts, people have been talking a lot about prime lenses (mainly 50mm).
I was wondering, which lens would be better for versatility in taking pictures? Meaning that I can should macro+landscapes+portraits without running into problems? Aka, a lens that you can leave on your camera when out and about and still take pictures without worrying?
The two primes I'm comparing are the 50mm and 35mm. <So it's between those two.
I have a D60, so the 35mm technically is 50mm, and the 50mm is technically a 75mm. (Or I think that's how it goes).

not sure if a prime lens is gonna do all that. 50mm definitely isnt for landscapes though...depending on how far away you are i guess it could. macro not so much either because it cant focus closely, but people do use it with extension tubes and reversing rings. portraits it's fine. for me the 50mm has too much zoom.

[[HyuNi]]

Yeah, I can do that, and it won't expose the lens. The point of my asking was that I wanted to find a camera store near where I live for things like this. Only places I know are wholesale stores like Best Buy, and I'm trying to find a dedicated camera store for my needs. Any suggestions?

Adorama, B&H, Amazon ARE the best camera dealers with the most inventory.
You just won't find the selection at brick and mortar stores.
They are usually a bit cheaper and don't include taxes, unless you live in NY.
The good thing about photography is most times, you don't desperately NEED something right away. You could afford to wait a couple days for the item to come.

Question: I know in the past few posts, people have been talking a lot about prime lenses (mainly 50mm).
I was wondering, which lens would be better for versatility in taking pictures? Meaning that I can should macro+landscapes+portraits without running into problems? Aka, a lens that you can leave on your camera when out and about and still take pictures without worrying?
The two primes I'm comparing are the 50mm and 35mm. <So it's between those two.
I have a D60, so the 35mm technically is 50mm, and the 50mm is technically a 75mm. (Or I think that's how it goes).

A prime lens and versatility don't really go together. Primes are generally for specific purposes, whether they be for low light situations or shallow depth of field shots; none of which will be sufficient if you only have that lens. Technically it's possible to shoot macro if you have a reversing ring, but you'll have to focus manually and extension tubes cost a bit pricey. Landscapes are possible, but it won't be capturing nearly as much in the frame. Portraits are what primes are usually the best at. Because of the wide apertures, it isolates the subject very well.
If you have a friend that has a 50mm, give it a test run. When I got my Sigma 50 on my 1.6x crop 40D, I thought it was too long and didn't like it as much, but when I moved to my 1.3x crop 1DmarkII, I think it's perfect.

As a general rule, don't buy camera equipment because you think they will significantly improve your photos. Technically, the only time you should upgrade is when you feel like your equipment is restricting you from capturing a photo. And when that happens, you'll know exactly why and what lens/body/accessory you need to upgrade. If you come here asking, "what should I buy next?" That tells me that you are just fine with what you have already.
Unless the deal of the century falls into my lap, I think I won't be buying a new lens for a long time because I thought about my purchases before I bought them. I have a wide angle/general walkaround (EF 16-35L), a prime (Sigma 50mm), and a telephoto (EF 70-200 F4L) that allows me to capture 90% of what I want to take photos of.

[VietChink]

Oh okay thanks HyuNi. Luckily, my rear lens cap and body cap showed up in my friend's car, so I don't have to purchase anything

What do you guys use to clean your lenses? Are there are any good homemade methods? Or should I just spring for a cheap cleaning kit? Will I need a rocket blower?

Also, I've read a couple times that images are sharpest at F11. Is this for all lenses or just specific lenses?

[dot1q]

^ every lens is different and has their aperture sweet spot range for the sharpest shots. Typically, its between F8-F11.

[DarkWaltz]

HyuNi thanks a lot for the clarification in the previous pages. I'm currently owning a 50mm f1.8 and am considering getting the 50mm f1.4, either canon or sigma. You seem to say there's is quite a significant difference with both. I'm also aiming to use it mostly for portrait shots and people shots. The 50mm f1.8 picture quality is quite nice imo, but would the difference with a 1.4 be drastic in broad strong daylight outdoors? I'm assuming the bokeh will be better blended and more blurry with this one, but how about sharpness difference?

[[HyuNi]]

^
Sharpness-wise, I would say they are similiar enough that after post processing, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference. If you have the 1.8 already, it's going to be hard to justify getting the sigma because it's about 3x the cost, but it won't improve the IQ by that much. The actual glass on the EF 50 1.8 is exceptional. It's just that the build quality, AF, and the limited amount of aperture blades make it less appealing to use.

To be honest, I skipped the 1.8 altogether and went straight to the sigma.
But from the reviews, I hear that the EF 50 1.8 is a bit soft wide open (making photos look a bit dreamy), and has to be stopped down a tad. But no need to worry because people who've reported that are EXTREMELY anal people who measurebate and crop every photo 100% to check for sharpness.
Most likely, you won't need to shoot at 1.8 anyways, because when I shoot wide open with my 1.4 and shoot real close, if I focus on the eyes, the ears start to blur away, which is probably not what you want.

If you made up your mind that you ARE going to upgrade your EF 50 1.8, to the EF 50 1.4 or the Sigma 50 1.4, I would get the sigma because you get a lot more for it, for a bit more cost. But if you're wonderig if upgrading at all is worth the price, then I'd stick with your nifty fifty until you can personally justify spending that much more for IQ that is in many respects, similar to the regular eye.

If you want some sample pictures, I shot a friend's wedding with only the Sigma 50 1.4 (I had just upgraded to the 1DmarkII and my crop lenses no longer worked)
Most of the photos were shot wide open (cuz I'm a bokeh junkie)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/36832084@N07/...57619465040720/
*disregard the flash technique... It was my first time using flash and I had no idea how to bounce and illuminate correctly

[DarkWaltz]

^ Thanks a lot for the detailed input! I checked your pictures and it is indeed quite sharp! It looks pretty similar to some pictures of my 1.8. You never used an aperture value of 1.4 in those pics right? The bokeh looks controlled and not over abused Or maybe because my eye is not keen enough as I was playing around these days with my 85mm at 1.8, hah, so i might have gotten use to that bokeh instead.

Anyway, you're making me think twice of getting it now - I'll try it in a store and compare. For 700$ extra and a small difference, I just might stick with what I have now. Your pictures are nice by the way, and I haven't found anything weird/irking with your use of flash in the pics