# DSLR Discussion



## Bevo (Nov 23, 2012)

I have a D90 and love to shoot with it but I would love to learn new tips and tricks with it and I will think other DSLR users can benefit as well.

Items for discussion would be how to use your settings like aperture priority, F-stop, white balance and lenses for correct applications.

I am a total newb when it comes to shooting and I think sharing some info will help us all.

Aperture
Understand what is Aperture in photographic basic

Depth of Field
Use Depth of Field to Improve Your Digital Photos | Alphatracks

I love this shot i took, the depth brings out the look of the guitar 






http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll189/bevo137/DSC_0016_zps9c1439
c8.jpg

I love the color here but I think the lens was not the best as it has some distortion.





This one came out nice but if the lens was a prime I think the depth of field detail would really bring out the look.


----------



## xfilth (Nov 23, 2012)

Shoot in RAW! 

650D/t4i user here


----------



## ThePhilosopher (Nov 23, 2012)

Bevo said:


> I love the color here but I think the lens was not the best as it has some distortion.



I think the bigger issue is the blown out bumper.



Bevo said:


> This one came out nice but if the lens was a prime I think the depth of field detail would really bring out the look.



Prime vs zoom at the same focal length would have the same DOF; there may be differences in softness due to lens construction factors, but that's not the same as DOF.

Here's a cheat sheet that explains the basics of photography: http://www.pixtus.com/pixtus-downloads.html?download=2

I shoot all M all the time, I never use aperture or shutter priority - just a carry over from shooting film I suppose (and knowing I'd rather be the one thinking).

The biggest thing I can suggest is shoot with purpose; you can learn a lot by finding a photo you like and trying to emulate it.

D3/Bronica ETRSi/Sinar Alpina user here .


----------



## -Nolly- (Nov 23, 2012)

Personally I see no issue with using program modes for snapshots or when out and about just responding to the environment around you, though you should strive to be capable of shooting full-manual. Try aperture priority - you can make your aperture selection based on the creative effect you want, and let the camera select the appropriate shutter speed. It is, however, extremely important to understand your camera's various metering modes and how it will respond to predominantly light or dark subject matter, so you can adjust the target exposure correspondingly (no matter what shooting mode you're using).

With that said, learning about lighting and exposure is the most important thing you can do to improve your pictures. Fast primes are awesome (I'm more or less a prime-only guy) but they're not going to do anything to cover up poor composition.

Bevo, your shots show promise but there are objective flaws in each - 

1) the use of flash on the first kills the soft focus effect by creating very hard shadow. There is a lot of negative space at the top of the frame, and my eye isn't being lead to the focal point. Using a diffuse light source, and taking the shot more perpendicular to the body would give a more flattering perspective, fill the frame and show off the guitar's natural lines.

2) As ThePhilosopher has pointed out, the highlights are blown in this image. The hard lighting isn't easy to work with but again, the shadows are distracting and the narrow aperture leaves the shot lacking depth. The person standing behind the bonnet, and the grey car in the bottom left of the frame are distracting. 
You can eliminate the distortion by shooting at a longer focal length, which would also help you isolate your subject.

3) Probably the best of the bunch, but shooting from a lower angle up at the engine would exaggerate the sense of power and size, while getting closer or aiming more directly at the side of the engine would eliminate the dead space at either end (the grey bulkhead is not doing anything for me) and give a tighter, more purposeful image.



A great way of learning is to go lurk the big photography forums and see what kind of advice the pros give the amateurs. They are a LOT more blunt in their advice than I've seen on guitar forums and you'll very quickly pick up on a lot of compositional aspects you hadn't thought of before. Also, professional photographer Adam Lerner hosts a weekly "Friday Flickr Photo Critique" on his youtube channel - it's definitely worth checking those out since, again, they can get very detailed and particular in their critiques.


----------



## Bevo (Nov 23, 2012)

Great feedback guys, that is just the sort of thing that will help me and the group.

The thought you put into a picture before you take it was a big lesson I just learned. The mention of purpose also reinforces the preparation of the shot.

Now I am looking to learn how to not be a point and shooter but a photographer!
I will post up other pictures as I try to explore and learn.

What is the best photo forum sites to visit?


----------



## -Nolly- (Nov 23, 2012)

Bevo said:


> Great feedback guys, that is just the sort of thing that will help me and the group.
> 
> The thought you put into a picture before you take it was a big lesson I just learned. The mention of purpose also reinforces the preparation of the shot.
> 
> ...



Awesome, that's the best attitude to have. The more you go out shooting with these things in mind the more ingrained they'll become. Try to visualise the picture before you even put the viewfinder to your eye - something I find easiest with a prime lens since you can really get to know the focal length, so you instinctively know where to stand to frame the shot as you want it. I shoot almost exclusively with a 50mm for that reason 

Check out forums like Photography Forum & Digital Photography Forum and FM Forums, and this is the youtube channel I was referring to earlier: Critique - YouTube

It sounds mean, but I think you can actually learn just as much from bad photos as you can good ones. Looking at a photo and analysing what's bad about it is a lesson in what not to do, and sometimes it's surprising how often that can trigger a "lightbulb moment"


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Nov 23, 2012)

I thought I'm a photographer instantly if I buy a DSLR camera and change my profile picture on facebook to one of me taking a picture of myself with it in the mirror.


----------



## Bevo (Nov 24, 2012)

Great sites, I spent hours on them looking at pictures and responses and see what you guys are talking about.

Stealth, if you have a high end full frame camera then that mirror picture makes you a "Pro" photographer lol!!!


----------



## xfilth (Nov 24, 2012)

Looking to get a nice walkaround lens and a few Canon 24-70's (2.8 mk1) on craiglist have caught my eye, but I'm wondering if the wide angle will be too narrow on a crop. 
Ideally, I'd take a 17-55, since the wider angle and IS would be nice and I'm not looking to go FF in the foreseeable future, but I can't find any good deals on them. 540£ is the cheapest I can find on CL and I can get a mint 24-70 for 630£, which seems like a pretty great deal. 
So should I get the 17-55, be set for a long while in regards to walkaround lenses, or should I get the 24-70 as a potentially good investment and just supplement it with a wide-angle, such as a 10-22, a bit down the road?


----------



## -Nolly- (Nov 24, 2012)

xfilth said:


> Looking to get a nice walkaround lens and a few Canon 24-70's (2.8 mk1) on craiglist have caught my eye, but I'm wondering if the wide angle will be too narrow on a crop.
> Ideally, I'd take a 17-55, since the wider angle and IS would be nice and I'm not looking to go FF in the foreseeable future, but I can't find any good deals on them. 540£ is the cheapest I can find on CL and I can get a mint 24-70 for 630£, which seems like a pretty great deal.
> So should I get the 17-55, be set for a long while in regards to walkaround lenses, or should I get the 24-70 as a potentially good investment and just supplement it with a wide-angle, such as a 10-22, a bit down the road?




I had a very similar dilemma when I had a 600D (T3i). I ended up getting the 24-70 (mk.1), but I definitely found the focal lengths awkwardly middle-of-the-road. 24 is not wide at all on a crop sensor (equivalent of 38.4mm on a full-frame). What you do get with that lens is the silly-fast autofocus and f/2.8 through the full range, neither of which the non-L lenses can compete with. £630 is a great deal, I'd definitely consider that strongly, but you're probably setting yourself up for more expenditure on a full-frame camera down the road .


----------



## ThePhilosopher (Nov 24, 2012)

Pixtus.com has some good stuff occasionally, but it's showcase section is somewhat poor.
Large Format Photography Forum isn't aimed at DSLRs but has a good amount of information of photography in general and will make all your b&w feel inadequate.


----------



## xfilth (Nov 24, 2012)

-Nolly- said:


> I had a very similar dilemma when I had a 600D (T3i). I ended up getting the 24-70 (mk.1), but I definitely found the focal lengths awkwardly middle-of-the-road. 24 is not wide at all on a crop sensor (equivalent of 38.4mm on a full-frame). What you do get with that lens is the silly-fast autofocus and f/2.8 through the full range, neither of which the non-L lenses can compete with. £630 is a great deal, I'd definitely consider that strongly, but you're probably setting yourself up for more expenditure on a full-frame camera down the road .



Very similar indeed - I use a 650D  Such a tough call!  I tried to map out the pros and cons, both from the general consensus on different forums and from my own experience with the 17-55 (my father has one, so I've spent a bit of time with it - but unfortunately, I don't live at home, so I can't steal it on a regular basis  ). Feel free to chip in 

Pros of 17-55:
Better suited focal range
IS
~35% lighter weight
Sharpness across the whole range

Cons of 17-55:
Not easy to find a great deal as a bargain hunter 
Not future proof in case of FF (but it retains its value great, so eh)

Pros of 24-70:
L build quality
Longer max focal length
Potentially good investment
RED RING!

Cons of 24-70:
Awkward focal range (could be supplemented with a wide lens)
~50% heavier than 17-55, so might be front-heavy with a 650D
No IS
I've heard people claiming it is soft - especially at wide apertures 
I hear horror stories about bad QC/need for recalibration. Might just be a vocal minority.

Both are constant f2.8 and both have fast and precise AF, according to the info I've been able to dig out.

I would get both and see what I prefer more, but then I'd have to sell my JP6 

This is shot with the 17-55:


----------



## Bevo (Nov 24, 2012)

This is addicting!

So I went over the sites and started to critique the pictures before reading the reviews. In doing so I was able to learn a bit more as to what is going on in them.

Looking at my pictures I found a few where I put some thought into it. I also did a minor amount of correction editing on photo bucket.

This one I like because I set it up square and love all the lines and angles.






This is my GF when she was not looking, I love the light in her hair and the shading of the trees, it also has a great light to dark transition.






My daughter, I love the color of the walls and how her skin tone blends in, the reflection of her glasses and angle of her face gives her a soft calm look.


----------



## Bevo (Nov 24, 2012)

Couple more!

This I love as it has the mist of a cold day with the ski lift ready and waiting for the snow and people.






I like this one as it has the feel of a calm dusk setting in, the bridge lights are warm and the colors on the boats stand out.
In my edit I cropped the weeds out of the picture but FB won't keep the change??


----------



## -Nolly- (Nov 24, 2012)

xfilth said:


> Very similar indeed - I use a 650D  Such a tough call!  I tried to map out the pros and cons, both from the general consensus on different forums and from my own experience with the 17-55 (my father has one, so I've spent a bit of time with it - but unfortunately, I don't live at home, so I can't steal it on a regular basis  ). Feel free to chip in
> 
> Pros of 17-55:
> Better suited focal range
> ...



For some reason I didn't realise the 17-55 was f/2.8, I was assuming it was 3.5-5.6 like most of the non-L zooms. That changes a lot, if I were you I'd go for that lens hands down. If you upgrade to a full-frame later that 17 is going to be seriously wide and you'll get alot of use out of the upper range too.


----------



## xfilth (Nov 24, 2012)

-Nolly- said:


> For some reason I didn't realise the 17-55 was f/2.8, I was assuming it was 3.5-5.6 like most of the non-L zooms. That changes a lot, if I were you I'd go for that lens hands down. If you upgrade to a full-frame later that 17 is going to be seriously wide and you'll get alot of use out of the upper range too.



It's EF-S, though (probably the top reason why it's not an L branded lens  ) - so no FF action with it  After some semi-aggressive haggling, I've found a 17-55 for 480£. Not as big a save compared to the 24-70, but I think I'm gonna go for it anyways! Thanks a lot for the help


----------



## -Nolly- (Nov 24, 2012)

Bevo, those shots are much better! The following is only my opinion, but here are some thoughts:

The first is one the strongest in my opinion, the composition is great but the processing seems to have flattened the depth, added ghosting to either side of the lighthouse and created noise in the sky (over use of definition/clarity sliders?). It could make an intense black and white shot if you wanted. 

I'm not sure the portrait shots are particularly flattering, in the first the light is illuminating and over-exposing the hair but leaving the face in the dark, drawing attention to the unimportant areas of the frame. The second seems a over-contrasted, and again shot in hard lighting that creates pools of shadow and doesn't flatter the skin in appearance or tone. 
Non-studio portraiture is a tricky subject but does not necessarily require much in the way of additional equipment. I'd highly recommend purchasing a reflector (they are very cheap!) and shooting around the golden hour before sunset for beautiful lighting. Check out this video and others from his channel, they are great:




The ski lift is a cool shot, suitably foreboding. Since the station at the bottom is cut off by the frame already, I'd be tempted to crop the picture in tighter so the lift traverses the entire width of the frame (the clearer trees in the bottom left detract from the misty look and add dead space to the left of the subject). A cool variation would have been a portrait-oriented shot taken from further to the right so the full station is in frame, with the lift extending further vertically until it disappears into the mist entirely. Again, film-style B&W processing could be really neat looking to enhance the foreboding vibe.

The boat and bridge picture doesn't do much for me. It's very busy and fairly under-exposed. There isn't a definite subject for the eye to be drawn to, I think emphasising either the bridge of the boats, using perspective and/or depth of field, would be an effective way of conveying the scene.



Check out this video if you're interested in just how far some photographers go in terms of preparation and effort. Terrible quality video unfortunately, but look up Gregory Crewdson's images and just imagine working on a scale like this. Makes spending an extra minute or two on a shot seem like so much less of a big deal


----------



## ThePhilosopher (Nov 24, 2012)

The only decent shot there is the first IMO, the lift shot could be cool, but as is it reads snapshot. The boat and bridge shot needs to be reshot to have it make sense of the mess that's there.


----------



## Bevo (Nov 24, 2012)

Great feedback guys, I really appreciate the help!

We're getting there, just taking apart each picture I see really helps to know what I need to do..


----------



## Gabriel (Nov 27, 2012)

Personally, I'm a fan of fixed ranged lenses (50mm, 35mm, 24mm, 85mm, etc..) but that's more so because i enjoy portraits/fine detail photos a lot more than scenery. Doesn't mean that i won't take a few landscape pictures here and there but i love the DOF you get when you have a 50mm f/1.4. You do have to be careful of how you set up your photos though because shooting at 1.4 is extremely tricky with focusing unless you use the "live view" function on the camera which will allow you to zoom in on the screen instead of looking through the eye piece. I shoot in full manual and quite honestly that is the best way to learn about different methods on proper lighting/exposure. Rules of thirds is a must know. It isn't bad to have an object centered in the frame but the image will be a little dull. I don't post enough on here so i'm gonna have to show off my skills with a few examples of my work. i'm not the greatest though.


----------



## ThePhilosopher (Nov 27, 2012)

The portrait of the guy is by far the strongest, I feel like that glass is going to slide off that table in the last shot.


----------



## Gabriel (Nov 27, 2012)

ThePhilosopher said:


> The portrait of the guy is by far the strongest, I feel like that glass is going to slide off that table in the last shot.



thanks man. my first time messing with this type of set up. i used a strobe in front with a large soft box along with another strobe in the back for rim lighting. 

the tilt on the last picture, i'm still on the fence about it but i felt it kinda made it stand out.


----------



## Bevo (Nov 28, 2012)

Nice pictures!

I think the first one would of been a bit better if the car was a different colour, it seems the reds don't let the guitar be the center of the image more part of it. I have a blue car if you want to pass me that guitar to try LOL!

The other shots are also really good with the dude being my favourite.


----------



## Gabriel (Nov 28, 2012)

Bevo said:


> Nice pictures!
> 
> I think the first one would of been a bit better if the car was a different colour, it seems the reds don't let the guitar be the center of the image more part of it. I have a blue car if you want to pass me that guitar to try LOL!
> 
> The other shots are also really good with the dude being my favourite.



Nice try, buddy  

i was doing a few pictures for MikeH on here and that's what i came up with along with a few other pictures of him with the guitar. sadly enough he traded it. 

I appreciate the feedback though! i really should have edited that one differently. still may play with it since i still have the original file.


----------



## Bevo (Nov 28, 2012)

Dude, I have been reading way to many reviews of pictures, yeah I have no clue LOL!!!
I signed up for a course to learn some of this stuff so I at least know what I am doing.

This is also a great way to get your pictures reviewed in a laid back way..

By the way, what system do you guys use for editing?


----------



## ThePhilosopher (Nov 28, 2012)

Bridge/Photoshop CS5, the only plugin I'm using is hemi to straighten out my ultra wide shots, everything else is just layers and hand manipulation with my aging Wacom Intuos 2.


----------



## Gabriel (Nov 29, 2012)

I'm using Lightroom 2.7 for the majority of my overall exposure and white balance touch ups.

For everything else i just use Photoshop CS4 extended for sharpening, clonestamping, stitching, dodge/burning, etc..


----------



## Bevo (Nov 30, 2012)

Are these free programs?

I will need to look them up.

Picked up a great 70-300 4.5 ED mid level Nikon lens for less than half price from the conveniently located Nikon warehouse/repair centre 1 block from my office.
I needed the reach and at 450 with the D90 I got it...cool, I can't wait to get out this weekend!


----------



## ThePhilosopher (Nov 30, 2012)

No.


----------



## Tang (Dec 3, 2012)

I'm gonna be the odd man out and say I've really been enjoying my Pentax K30. Dual control wheels should be included on EVERY DSLR. Moving from my Canon T3 to the K30 was like a revelation.

EDIT: not to mention the overabundance of old Pentax glass. FA LTD's? Yes please.


----------



## ThePhilosopher (Dec 3, 2012)

Wait until you get an M42 adapter and start using all that old screwmount glass. The dual wheels and the dual CF slots are one of the reasons I'm holding on to my D3 (I would love a D3x though).


----------



## Bevo (Dec 4, 2012)

Just read a review on the Pentax and sounds like a great camera!

My coworker has been really interested in the new D600 Nikon and has been doing his homework. Sounds like a great camera although he mentions it has some bugs and a dust issue, hopefully they can work this out.

Does Cannon have a competitor to the Nikon in the Full Frame price point?


----------



## Tang (Dec 4, 2012)

Bevo said:


> Just read a review on the Pentax and sounds like a great camera!
> 
> My coworker has been really interested in the new D600 Nikon and has been doing his homework. Sounds like a great camera although he mentions it has some bugs and a dust issue, hopefully they can work this out.
> 
> Does Cannon have a competitor to the Nikon in the Full Frame price point?



Amazon.com: Canon EOS 6D 20.1 MP CMOS Digital SLR Camera with 3.0-Inch LCD (Body Only): CANON: Electronics

I haven't done any full frame research recently, but the 6D just came out.


----------



## xfilth (Dec 4, 2012)

Yeah, the 6D is probably worth taking a look at. The auto-focus points are pretty lackluster, though.


----------



## Tang (Dec 4, 2012)

xfilth said:


> Yeah, the 6D is probably worth taking a look at. The auto-focus points are pretty lackluster, though.



If Canon would've integrated the 7D's autofocus into the 6D, they would've had a perfect 'beginner' full-frame, but that would've taken away from the 5D III. Too damn bad that Canon is afraid to cannabalize the sales of their higher end gear.


----------



## Bevo (Dec 5, 2012)

Out here the 6D has a waiting list, the camera guy said there is more demand for the Canon than Nikon.

Lets see how the autofocus plays out once its in everyones hands.
These Canon's do feel good in my hands compared to the Nikons, I don't like the shutter noise though, just loud but probably not a big deal in real life.


----------



## xfilth (Dec 6, 2012)

Related note, this 6D VS D600 review was just uploaded:


----------



## Bevo (Dec 7, 2012)

Great review and comparison...

Sounds like it will be a great tool even though I was not planing on purchasing one.
Sort of related my contractors have been getting me Best Buy cards as is my family, this will take a huge amount off the total if I decide to do it...


----------

