Heading to PA today for the yearly trip to the lake. Every year I do some photography up there. I did the whole lake photo thing, and have shot enough sunsets.. so the last few years I have tried to do different things. Last year I did a lot of macro stuff with a lens I rented. This year I am going to put in a good solid effort on some star trail photos. I tried it last year, but I was woefully unprepared.
Last time I mainly did long exposures.. which came out OK except for the massive amounts of noise in the images. Even with a 5DmkII you get massive noise with a 15 min exposure.. I believe my problem was that I didn't have long exposure noise reduction enabled. That should have helped. I am going to try that again with it enabled this year.. but also going to try to use the stacking technique. This involves shooting many frames at much shorter exposures.. and then stacking them into one in post processing. Never did it before (other then with HDR) so it will be interesting. Wish I was bringing my PC with me so I could actually see on the spot how things are going to look.. but that's kinda unrealistic. (all the more reason for my next computer to be a laptop.. but that is at least 2 years out)
Weather reports are favorable (unlike last year).. moon phase is workable (not full at least).. so hopefully everything will work out. :)
I'll post some results and a blog if I get something useful.. if I don't mention it again then it is because I screwed everything up. LOL
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Fireworks 101...
So in typical fashion I am posting a "how to shoot fireworks" blog a few days after the 4th of July... pretty useful right?!?! LOL
Sorry about that.. I just don't think of these things until after the fact.
My approach to fireworks is similar to waterfalls... and that is to use longer exposures to capture the motion of the subject. With a waterfall you will see a nice sheet of water as opposed to water droplets frozen in mid air (although those shots are also nice too when zoomed in real close to capture all the details... its just a stylistic choice). With fireworks you will see a bright light trail, and hopefully multiple complementary bursts which create a nice composite image.
My go-to exposure setting is M 1", f16, ISO 200. With that you get a nearly black sky, and capture a nice trail. I have used 1/2" as well with the appropriate change in f-stop. Tripods are mandatory obviously, as well as a wired remote release. I normally set it up with a wide focal length pointed at the scene of action. I always end up cropping things down (22MP FF to work with anyway...) so it don't matter too much to compose it perfectly then and there. One other thing to do is pre-focus the camera and then once set, switch the lens to manual. This will avoid those silly delays with the camera re-focusing (if it even can given there will be very little contrast to use). If your camera has it definitely turn on the long exposure noise reduction. With Canon this will effectively double your shot to shot delay but at 1" that matters little.. (now when I am doing night photography with a 2 stop ND filter and use 15 minute exposures... yeah then it matters much LOL). I have no idea if Nikon offers this feature or what it does..
So once all that is ready you just sit and wait.. I try to time my first shots with the launch of the rockets. Remember the camera will capture 1 seconds worth of action each time.. After the first shot i just bang away on the shutter button and hope for the best... you end up with a ton of throw-aways but it's effective.
Post processing wise there isn't much to do. Raise the saturation just a bit, and slightly raise the black point to really make that color pop.. add some sharpening (but not tooo much), and a bit of clarity. Crop it down the way you want to present it and then you are good to go. Obviously I am shooting in RAW mode here (and you should be too), and using ACR to process (ditto).
You can see some of my work from a few days ago on my new Fireworks gallery
Sorry about that.. I just don't think of these things until after the fact.
My approach to fireworks is similar to waterfalls... and that is to use longer exposures to capture the motion of the subject. With a waterfall you will see a nice sheet of water as opposed to water droplets frozen in mid air (although those shots are also nice too when zoomed in real close to capture all the details... its just a stylistic choice). With fireworks you will see a bright light trail, and hopefully multiple complementary bursts which create a nice composite image.
My go-to exposure setting is M 1", f16, ISO 200. With that you get a nearly black sky, and capture a nice trail. I have used 1/2" as well with the appropriate change in f-stop. Tripods are mandatory obviously, as well as a wired remote release. I normally set it up with a wide focal length pointed at the scene of action. I always end up cropping things down (22MP FF to work with anyway...) so it don't matter too much to compose it perfectly then and there. One other thing to do is pre-focus the camera and then once set, switch the lens to manual. This will avoid those silly delays with the camera re-focusing (if it even can given there will be very little contrast to use). If your camera has it definitely turn on the long exposure noise reduction. With Canon this will effectively double your shot to shot delay but at 1" that matters little.. (now when I am doing night photography with a 2 stop ND filter and use 15 minute exposures... yeah then it matters much LOL). I have no idea if Nikon offers this feature or what it does..
So once all that is ready you just sit and wait.. I try to time my first shots with the launch of the rockets. Remember the camera will capture 1 seconds worth of action each time.. After the first shot i just bang away on the shutter button and hope for the best... you end up with a ton of throw-aways but it's effective.
Post processing wise there isn't much to do. Raise the saturation just a bit, and slightly raise the black point to really make that color pop.. add some sharpening (but not tooo much), and a bit of clarity. Crop it down the way you want to present it and then you are good to go. Obviously I am shooting in RAW mode here (and you should be too), and using ACR to process (ditto).
You can see some of my work from a few days ago on my new Fireworks gallery
..just one more thing on color calibration.
As I was re-reading my last blog post on color calibration I realized I had forgotten one more point to make..
After you have established solid color management in your digital darkroom you will be able to process your images and print what you see on the screen.. basically if your output is prints, and only prints, then you are all set...
However... most (nearly all) digital photographers these days don't just make prints.. the most widely used way to display your work is using online galleries on web sites. Now from what we learned last time we know that the standard web browser does not support color management.. also 99.9999% of your viewers will not have calibrated monitors.. So all these people viewing your work will not really be looking at faithful representations of the original image...
There isn't much you can do. It is just a fact of life with digital display. You have no idea if people will see your work on a full blown digital monitor or a cell phone. You just have no control over it. The best approach is to always double check your digital galleries on different types of set ups. This is a lot like what (at least used to be) done in music studios where the final mix of a song was previewed on different types of speakers, stereos, and even Walkmans to make sure that the average listener (who wouldn't be using $1000 studio monitors) was going to hear what the artist intended even if all they had was a cheep set of headphones. Quite a lot of techniques with notch filters, eq-ing, etc were developed to create a mix which would work on most situations.
In this case view your gallery on a few different "average" computers, on a cell phone, and maybe even an apple Ipad.. make sure that in each case the images (while still not being faithfully reproduced) at least come close to what you intended. If, for example, you have a very high key image make sure that enough highlight detail is preserved on these setups so the user doesn't just see a totally blown out image. If not then you may want to consider creating a new version of the image tailored for online display.
When working with clients who see their proofs on a web gallery it is critical to inform them of this dilemma. Forget about filling them in on the finer details.. most people don't get it nor do they want to know. Just a statement like:
I find with most clients they get the point right away... and after they see just one example they no longer even care about it..
Anyway.. that just about sums up what I want to say about color calibration and management at the moment.. if anyone wants more details just fire off a message to me.
After you have established solid color management in your digital darkroom you will be able to process your images and print what you see on the screen.. basically if your output is prints, and only prints, then you are all set...
However... most (nearly all) digital photographers these days don't just make prints.. the most widely used way to display your work is using online galleries on web sites. Now from what we learned last time we know that the standard web browser does not support color management.. also 99.9999% of your viewers will not have calibrated monitors.. So all these people viewing your work will not really be looking at faithful representations of the original image...
There isn't much you can do. It is just a fact of life with digital display. You have no idea if people will see your work on a full blown digital monitor or a cell phone. You just have no control over it. The best approach is to always double check your digital galleries on different types of set ups. This is a lot like what (at least used to be) done in music studios where the final mix of a song was previewed on different types of speakers, stereos, and even Walkmans to make sure that the average listener (who wouldn't be using $1000 studio monitors) was going to hear what the artist intended even if all they had was a cheep set of headphones. Quite a lot of techniques with notch filters, eq-ing, etc were developed to create a mix which would work on most situations.
In this case view your gallery on a few different "average" computers, on a cell phone, and maybe even an apple Ipad.. make sure that in each case the images (while still not being faithfully reproduced) at least come close to what you intended. If, for example, you have a very high key image make sure that enough highlight detail is preserved on these setups so the user doesn't just see a totally blown out image. If not then you may want to consider creating a new version of the image tailored for online display.
When working with clients who see their proofs on a web gallery it is critical to inform them of this dilemma. Forget about filling them in on the finer details.. most people don't get it nor do they want to know. Just a statement like:
"Due to the irregularities in computer displays and how they are configured the images you see on the screen will not faithfully show how the final printed product will look. In nearly all cases the prints will look substantially better."And then let them figure it out from there...
I find with most clients they get the point right away... and after they see just one example they no longer even care about it..
Anyway.. that just about sums up what I want to say about color calibration and management at the moment.. if anyone wants more details just fire off a message to me.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Color calibration FTW
So today's blog topic is a very important one covering one of the critical things you need to understand when setting up your own digital darkroom... Color Calibration.
So what is it?
Well here is the deal... take a picture, and then send it to a decent photo lab to make a print of it... then open that same picture on your computer in the windows photo viewer... then compare... what do you see?
The photos look different. The colors are not quite the same. The tone is just totally off, and it may be brighter or darker then you saw on the screen.
So what is the problem here?
Well there are several.... First the problem lies with your output.. You see your monitor/computer just isn't out of the box going to know how to display the colors as they are supposed to look (As compared to the standard).
(Note: your image file is made up of pixels.. each of which has four values.. Red, Green, Blue, and Luminosity. RGB tell the computer what the color is, and luminosity gives the brightness...)
So for a particular RGB (Red, Green, Blue) value the actual color displayed is not going to match the standard as to what that color is supposed to look like. There will be error due to the design of the screen, and due to tolerances within that particular one (because after all unless you buy a very expensive monitor designed for graphic work they just kinda slap em together). Also most monitors are setup (With their on board controls) to be optimal for business or video games. Typically they have cold color tones and lots of contrast. This pumps up the brightness and makes the black deep.. but it kills all the highlight details and makes skin look colorless. The resultant display may be "pleasing" to your eyes and good for viewing a PowerPoint presentation, playing a game, or watching YouTube videos... but the images won't be faithful to their source data.
Another problem is with the software you use to display the photo. Every image has a color space associated with it. The color space defines what a particular RGB value is supposed to look like. There are several, but the one most often used by digital photographers is sRGB. Only software that has built in color management can read the image data and interpret it against the color space and then display the colors correctly. Otherwise the colors will (Again) be off.
The only software that I know of that has built in color management is Adobe Photoshop, and Lightroom. Other adobe products probably have it.. as well as other professional (or serious amateur) level software. However your standard windows photo viewer will not, and your Internet Explorer (or Firefox) will not either.
Obviously.. if you fall into one or both of the two issues above you won't be able to process your images properly for print. Without a true display of how the image will look on paper you can't possibly adjust the exposure, color saturation, and etc. Anything you do will be a shot in the dark. So if you are in this situation it is imperative you take action to establish a better "digital darkroom" for your work.
Calibrate your Monitor
FIRST... you need to calibrate your monitor/computer. This is easier then it sounds.. but does require a small investment in a calibration tool. DO NOT go by any of those tutorials that tell you how to do it with your eye... its not worth the time.. The tool will be some software, and then a colorometer which attaches to your monitor screen or hangs in front of it. The software will display RGB values and grey scale values and the meter will read them. The software will compare the measured output with what it is supposed to be.. and then generate a color profile for your computer/monitor. The profile tells your video card how to adjust the display output so that the RGB values more closely match the standard.
One of the best bang/buck monitor calibration tools is the Spyder tool from ColorVision. I use the Spyder2, and I believe they have the 3rd version out now. There are other tools which some say are "better" but they cost quite a bit more.
Use the right software..
Now.. the second problem.. software. Obviously this is simple.. you need to use software that supports color management. Adobe products do so that is a start. I am a big advocate of photographers using Lightroom (or Photoshop) so if you are doing that then you are already all set. If you are not using Adobe then investigate if your current chosen software does support color space.. if it does not then it is time to switch.
Just remember.. that even if you calibrate your monitor you MUST be using a color managed photo viewer see the image correctly. One without the other won't cut it. Yes.. you may be a little better off with a calibrated monitor alone... but not good enough for editing (maybe display.. not editing for print).
One additional thing to keep in mind... yes printers get calibrated too. :) Actually the combination of Printer, chemicals or ink, and paper get calibrated and output adjusted so that the resultant prints meet the standards. A good lab will do that periodically, and it MUST be done for every combination of ink and paper used.. Normally a printer comes out of the box with drivers and software calibrated for the OEM paper and ink. So if you buy a canon printer and use canon photo paper with canon ink you are nearly good to go. However if you use Costco paper the calibration will not hold. The same is true for labs that use photographic paper printers.
If you use a good lab like Mpix, or even Costco, they normally will calibrate their systems as part of regular maintenance. Your local drug store probably won't.
One final bit of info: most good labs will provide you a color profile for their printers. These are similar to the profile you make for your monitor except it is for the printer. What can you do with it? Well if you are using Photoshop you can install that profile and use it for soft proofing. Even if you calibrate the printer there will be some limitations. Some colors will just look a little different because of the nature of the paper. One example I know of is that Kodak Endura paper (as good as it is..) will display bright reds more subdued. What the soft proofing will show you is how the image on your screen will look once printed on the printer.
So when you have your monitor calibrated.. your color managed Photoshop.. AND a profile for the output printer.. you will have a true digital darkroom where you can preview exactly what you will get as physical output.
Is that the only calibration with digital photography? No of course not. Cameras, for one get calibrated for better raw file processing. Lens/body combinations can get focus calibrations done so that the auto focus is more spot on. Each improves your work just a bit more.
My above explanation is pretty simplified and thus I omitted a lot of the technical jargon and theory (etc).. there are plenty of resources out there on the net if you want to know more on these topics.. however the above is the practical info you need.
So what is it?
Well here is the deal... take a picture, and then send it to a decent photo lab to make a print of it... then open that same picture on your computer in the windows photo viewer... then compare... what do you see?
The photos look different. The colors are not quite the same. The tone is just totally off, and it may be brighter or darker then you saw on the screen.
So what is the problem here?
Well there are several.... First the problem lies with your output.. You see your monitor/computer just isn't out of the box going to know how to display the colors as they are supposed to look (As compared to the standard).
(Note: your image file is made up of pixels.. each of which has four values.. Red, Green, Blue, and Luminosity. RGB tell the computer what the color is, and luminosity gives the brightness...)
So for a particular RGB (Red, Green, Blue) value the actual color displayed is not going to match the standard as to what that color is supposed to look like. There will be error due to the design of the screen, and due to tolerances within that particular one (because after all unless you buy a very expensive monitor designed for graphic work they just kinda slap em together). Also most monitors are setup (With their on board controls) to be optimal for business or video games. Typically they have cold color tones and lots of contrast. This pumps up the brightness and makes the black deep.. but it kills all the highlight details and makes skin look colorless. The resultant display may be "pleasing" to your eyes and good for viewing a PowerPoint presentation, playing a game, or watching YouTube videos... but the images won't be faithful to their source data.
Another problem is with the software you use to display the photo. Every image has a color space associated with it. The color space defines what a particular RGB value is supposed to look like. There are several, but the one most often used by digital photographers is sRGB. Only software that has built in color management can read the image data and interpret it against the color space and then display the colors correctly. Otherwise the colors will (Again) be off.
The only software that I know of that has built in color management is Adobe Photoshop, and Lightroom. Other adobe products probably have it.. as well as other professional (or serious amateur) level software. However your standard windows photo viewer will not, and your Internet Explorer (or Firefox) will not either.
Obviously.. if you fall into one or both of the two issues above you won't be able to process your images properly for print. Without a true display of how the image will look on paper you can't possibly adjust the exposure, color saturation, and etc. Anything you do will be a shot in the dark. So if you are in this situation it is imperative you take action to establish a better "digital darkroom" for your work.
Calibrate your Monitor
FIRST... you need to calibrate your monitor/computer. This is easier then it sounds.. but does require a small investment in a calibration tool. DO NOT go by any of those tutorials that tell you how to do it with your eye... its not worth the time.. The tool will be some software, and then a colorometer which attaches to your monitor screen or hangs in front of it. The software will display RGB values and grey scale values and the meter will read them. The software will compare the measured output with what it is supposed to be.. and then generate a color profile for your computer/monitor. The profile tells your video card how to adjust the display output so that the RGB values more closely match the standard.
One of the best bang/buck monitor calibration tools is the Spyder tool from ColorVision. I use the Spyder2, and I believe they have the 3rd version out now. There are other tools which some say are "better" but they cost quite a bit more.
Use the right software..
Now.. the second problem.. software. Obviously this is simple.. you need to use software that supports color management. Adobe products do so that is a start. I am a big advocate of photographers using Lightroom (or Photoshop) so if you are doing that then you are already all set. If you are not using Adobe then investigate if your current chosen software does support color space.. if it does not then it is time to switch.
Just remember.. that even if you calibrate your monitor you MUST be using a color managed photo viewer see the image correctly. One without the other won't cut it. Yes.. you may be a little better off with a calibrated monitor alone... but not good enough for editing (maybe display.. not editing for print).
One additional thing to keep in mind... yes printers get calibrated too. :) Actually the combination of Printer, chemicals or ink, and paper get calibrated and output adjusted so that the resultant prints meet the standards. A good lab will do that periodically, and it MUST be done for every combination of ink and paper used.. Normally a printer comes out of the box with drivers and software calibrated for the OEM paper and ink. So if you buy a canon printer and use canon photo paper with canon ink you are nearly good to go. However if you use Costco paper the calibration will not hold. The same is true for labs that use photographic paper printers.
If you use a good lab like Mpix, or even Costco, they normally will calibrate their systems as part of regular maintenance. Your local drug store probably won't.
One final bit of info: most good labs will provide you a color profile for their printers. These are similar to the profile you make for your monitor except it is for the printer. What can you do with it? Well if you are using Photoshop you can install that profile and use it for soft proofing. Even if you calibrate the printer there will be some limitations. Some colors will just look a little different because of the nature of the paper. One example I know of is that Kodak Endura paper (as good as it is..) will display bright reds more subdued. What the soft proofing will show you is how the image on your screen will look once printed on the printer.
So when you have your monitor calibrated.. your color managed Photoshop.. AND a profile for the output printer.. you will have a true digital darkroom where you can preview exactly what you will get as physical output.
Is that the only calibration with digital photography? No of course not. Cameras, for one get calibrated for better raw file processing. Lens/body combinations can get focus calibrations done so that the auto focus is more spot on. Each improves your work just a bit more.
My above explanation is pretty simplified and thus I omitted a lot of the technical jargon and theory (etc).. there are plenty of resources out there on the net if you want to know more on these topics.. however the above is the practical info you need.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
So you want to buy a DSLR.....
Ok so you decided to take the plunge and pick up one of those new DSLR cameras you have been seeing around the neck of people at weddings and well.. basically all over the place. But you have no idea where to start... Rather then blindly taking your hard earned cash to Best Buy and relying on the "knowledgeable" employee to help you buy one.. here is some basic tips/info to get you started...
Note.. this is not a be-all-end-all guide to buying one.. these are just my basic thoughts and a rehash of what I have told a few people recently who were doing just this.. buying a new DSLR for the first time.
(ok I couldn't help it.. had to add one diagram..lol)
DSLR stands for Digital Single Len
s Reflex. Boiled down what that means is that with a DSLR camera (or any SLR for that matter) there is only ONE lens and one way for the light to enter the camera. EVERYTHING from the actual light recording, view finder, focus sensors, exposure sensors, and so on, uses the same optics and light path. A PS (point & shoot) camera typically has a lens which is used for the camera to take the picture, and then several other sensors external to it which handle the rest. The viewfinder is an separate optic which is offset from the main lens. Now why is a SLR better? In a nutshell.. you are measuring the exact light that you are recording.. so everything will be more accurate. What you see in the viewfinder is what you get.
SLRs are bigger cameras then PS ones. They have bigger optics, and bigger film/sensors. Everything about them is more accurate, has less optical distortion, and cleaner (meaning lack of image/sensor noise) then a PS camera. What this means (again, in a nutshell) is better looking pictures across the board.
Basic rule: Bigger/Heaver optics/sensor = higher image quality and camera performance.
SLRs also have interchangeable lenses. Rather then stick you with fixed lens that has an "all purpose" focal length and mediocre performance you can select the right lens for what you are trying to do. For scenic stuff you can attach a nice wide angle.. for sports a telephoto with image stabilization. For a wedding maybe you will use a "fast" standard zoom (f2.8 24-70 is typical). During the course of a "event" you may find yourself swapping lenses a few times. Or.. maybe you just attach a good "walk around" lens and go with that.. accepting that it might not be totally ideal for each situation. It is all up to you.
SLR cameras are not for the photo-graphical weak. If you plan on just keeping it in P (programmed) mode all the time then you may want to consider getting a Pro-Sumer camera instead (a fancier better PS). SLRs allow you to use modes which give you total control over the photographic process. Everything from using full manual exposure, manual focus, manual flash power, and then RAW file post processing is possible. Of course you don't have to go that far by choice or by necessity. The point is that SLRs are for those who not only want to take pretty pictures, but who want to have that creative control over the photographic process. There also are some situations (like low light, natural light, sports, nature, etc) where you really NEED to control the process. The control systems in a PS camera just are not capable of seeing the shot the way our eyes do so they just can't setup the camera correctly. Those "scene" modes that your PS camera have may help you a little bit.. but only a little bit.
With a SLR you will be able to get shots you would never be able to get with a PS, at a far superior quality, and utilize creativity which you wouldn't be able to use with a PS. On the flip side you will have to learn (at least) about basic photography in order to make full use out of it.
So now that you have decided to buy one... what do you need to know?
Note: Yes there are 3rd parties who make lenses compatible with Canon and Nikon. Tamron, Sigma, and Zeiss are some of the major names. In some cases (Tamron and Sigma) you can get a better value version of the same "Brand" lens at similar or possibly better performance. Zeiss makes amazing lenses but they are not for amateurs and WILL empty your bank account. The same thing applies with flashes and other accessories... but if you want to use ETTL-II or the Nikon equivalent you'll need to stick with the brand name models.
Now.. which of the two should you buy? That is your choice. Both are good brands. Both have their fanboys. Both have their faults.
Marketing people, in an effort to "Dumb down" the whole camera buying process, have focused on megapixels as a discriminating factor with cameras. They push an idea that "More is better". Now that isn't necessarily NOT true. But it isn't the biggest and most important factor when comparing two cameras.
For me, that lies with image noise. I want to be able to jack up my ISO as high as possible and still end up with a useable image. I want to use as little noise reduction as possible. Sure, more resolution (or megapixels) is good too. But I know from experience that once I get over 10MP I can pretty much do whatever I need to do. I can crop down reasonably, and I can print up to poster size without a problem. Plus I have access to excellent tools which can upsample if needed. So if camera A has 12MP and B has 18MP I don't care too much... nor should you unless you plan on printing NASA quality wall posters.
High continuous shutter speeds are for the birds..
Here is another marketing friendly specification: how many frames per second (fps) a camera can take in continuous mode.
Put simply: If you are NOT a photo journalist... If you are NOT specifically a sports photographer shooting for SI, or ESPN.... if you are NOT a reporter who covers local high school / collage games.. or if you do NOT plan on hiking out into the wilderness with $10,000 lenses attempting to shoot birds in flight.. you do NOT need a super hyper fast fps!
Most entry level DSLRs do 3-4fps... and that is more then fine for chasing your toddler around. Trust me.
Included software
You aren't going to use anything that they include with the camera (at least until you start messing with RAW).
You are going to get your hands on Adobe Lightroom, Photoshop Express, or maybe full blown Photoshop.
There also are some other non Adobe competing products out there which are also good...
Forget about ANYTHING you can buy at BestBuy (unless it is from Adobe of course). For all sorts of reasons that I don't have time to go into here (maybe in a future blog) they are worthless. Again.. trust me.
s that are the same size are called "full frame" and cost more then $2000.
Smaller sensors cost less money to make, and thus the cameras are cheaper (and more compact). Mind you the crop sensors found in DSLRs are still much larger then what is typically found in a PS camera. The usual size is called 1.6x which means a full frame sensor is 1.6 times the size of the smaller sensor (in a nutshell). The sensor found in a PS camera is much smaller then that. These tiny sensors do not have excellent image quality overall.
Smaller sensors have another benefit in addition to price. Because of the physics behind it you get a telephoto effect. Basically that means whatever lens you attach will have slightly less wide angle, and slightly more telephoto. In the case of fixed length lenses they will be a little "longer" (more zoom) then what the lens actually is. Obviously that is just the basic idea..
One big drawback to smaller sensors is that their pixel density is much higher then their full frame counterparts. many more megapixels crammed into a small space. Due to the nature of physics this results in much more image sensor noise as compared to a lower pixel density. So.. if you crank up the ISO on a crop camera you will see significantly more image noise then compared to a more expensive full frame camera. Why do you care? Well if you are in low light you'll end up with grainy images.. or if you go to a wedding and do not use flash.. you'll end up with grainy images. Granted today's modern technology noise reduction software will help.. but it will be lossy. The #1 reason why people go full frame is to take advantage of the low imager noise.
So in general... the bigger the sensor the higher quality the images will be.. the lower the image noise will be.
I will also add that in my comparisons between my full frame 5DmkII and my crop 40D the full frame pictures have a much better dynamic range, color saturation, and over all beauty then with the 40D. There really is a difference beyond resolution and ISO.
Ok so that is what I got for you to start...
Note.. this is not a be-all-end-all guide to buying one.. these are just my basic thoughts and a rehash of what I have told a few people recently who were doing just this.. buying a new DSLR for the first time.
What exactly is a DSLR and why is it better then my Point and Shoot?
Ok.. to answer this I am going to avoid drawing any pictures, or getting too into the technical jargon. (going to be hard.. but lets try to give it a go)(ok I couldn't help it.. had to add one diagram..lol)
DSLR stands for Digital Single Len
s Reflex. Boiled down what that means is that with a DSLR camera (or any SLR for that matter) there is only ONE lens and one way for the light to enter the camera. EVERYTHING from the actual light recording, view finder, focus sensors, exposure sensors, and so on, uses the same optics and light path. A PS (point & shoot) camera typically has a lens which is used for the camera to take the picture, and then several other sensors external to it which handle the rest. The viewfinder is an separate optic which is offset from the main lens. Now why is a SLR better? In a nutshell.. you are measuring the exact light that you are recording.. so everything will be more accurate. What you see in the viewfinder is what you get. SLRs are bigger cameras then PS ones. They have bigger optics, and bigger film/sensors. Everything about them is more accurate, has less optical distortion, and cleaner (meaning lack of image/sensor noise) then a PS camera. What this means (again, in a nutshell) is better looking pictures across the board.
Basic rule: Bigger/Heaver optics/sensor = higher image quality and camera performance.
SLRs also have interchangeable lenses. Rather then stick you with fixed lens that has an "all purpose" focal length and mediocre performance you can select the right lens for what you are trying to do. For scenic stuff you can attach a nice wide angle.. for sports a telephoto with image stabilization. For a wedding maybe you will use a "fast" standard zoom (f2.8 24-70 is typical). During the course of a "event" you may find yourself swapping lenses a few times. Or.. maybe you just attach a good "walk around" lens and go with that.. accepting that it might not be totally ideal for each situation. It is all up to you.
SLR cameras are not for the photo-graphical weak. If you plan on just keeping it in P (programmed) mode all the time then you may want to consider getting a Pro-Sumer camera instead (a fancier better PS). SLRs allow you to use modes which give you total control over the photographic process. Everything from using full manual exposure, manual focus, manual flash power, and then RAW file post processing is possible. Of course you don't have to go that far by choice or by necessity. The point is that SLRs are for those who not only want to take pretty pictures, but who want to have that creative control over the photographic process. There also are some situations (like low light, natural light, sports, nature, etc) where you really NEED to control the process. The control systems in a PS camera just are not capable of seeing the shot the way our eyes do so they just can't setup the camera correctly. Those "scene" modes that your PS camera have may help you a little bit.. but only a little bit.
With a SLR you will be able to get shots you would never be able to get with a PS, at a far superior quality, and utilize creativity which you wouldn't be able to use with a PS. On the flip side you will have to learn (at least) about basic photography in order to make full use out of it.
So now that you have decided to buy one... what do you need to know?
You are buying into a system...
The biggest difference between buying a Point & Shoot (PS) camera, and DSLR, is that you are buying into a "system" with a DSLR purchase. You will be investing in lenses, flashes, and other accessories. It is the nature of the beast. These will all, more then likely, be from the same brand. So if you buy Canon you are stuck with the lenses offered for Canon... and so on. So you had better look beyond the camera body at what else that brand has to offer. Look into the lenses.. the pricing... It all should factor into what you buy because once you commit to a brand you are stuck. Down the road after you have bought a few lenses you are not likely going to dump that brand to go with another one. Note: Yes there are 3rd parties who make lenses compatible with Canon and Nikon. Tamron, Sigma, and Zeiss are some of the major names. In some cases (Tamron and Sigma) you can get a better value version of the same "Brand" lens at similar or possibly better performance. Zeiss makes amazing lenses but they are not for amateurs and WILL empty your bank account. The same thing applies with flashes and other accessories... but if you want to use ETTL-II or the Nikon equivalent you'll need to stick with the brand name models.
Nikon vs Canon vs ?
"So what brand should I buy". Let me (once again) boil it down... you should pick between Nikon or Canon. That is it.- Olympus has always done things differently then the mainstream.. and that will hurt you down the line.
- Sony is not really 100% ready for prime time yet (but they will be....and they will be good).
- Pretty much every other brand has very limited market share. Just stay away. A brand without market share isn't going to have good support by software companies, and 3rd party HW. If you are buying into a brand's system (See above) you don't want to buy into one that no one cares about.
Now.. which of the two should you buy? That is your choice. Both are good brands. Both have their fanboys. Both have their faults.
- Nikon has this funny thing where some of their lenses do not have built in AF motors... so they are only compatible with the more expensive bodies. (not really a huge deal.. but still a quirk that annoys me)
- Nikon also puts the IS in the body... which is not something I prefer.
- Canon (as of this moment) has ever so slightly more noise in their images at high ISO as opposed to Nikon
- And so on and so on...
Marketing things to ignore:
Megapixels... who needs em:Marketing people, in an effort to "Dumb down" the whole camera buying process, have focused on megapixels as a discriminating factor with cameras. They push an idea that "More is better". Now that isn't necessarily NOT true. But it isn't the biggest and most important factor when comparing two cameras.
For me, that lies with image noise. I want to be able to jack up my ISO as high as possible and still end up with a useable image. I want to use as little noise reduction as possible. Sure, more resolution (or megapixels) is good too. But I know from experience that once I get over 10MP I can pretty much do whatever I need to do. I can crop down reasonably, and I can print up to poster size without a problem. Plus I have access to excellent tools which can upsample if needed. So if camera A has 12MP and B has 18MP I don't care too much... nor should you unless you plan on printing NASA quality wall posters.
High continuous shutter speeds are for the birds..
Here is another marketing friendly specification: how many frames per second (fps) a camera can take in continuous mode.
Put simply: If you are NOT a photo journalist... If you are NOT specifically a sports photographer shooting for SI, or ESPN.... if you are NOT a reporter who covers local high school / collage games.. or if you do NOT plan on hiking out into the wilderness with $10,000 lenses attempting to shoot birds in flight.. you do NOT need a super hyper fast fps!
Most entry level DSLRs do 3-4fps... and that is more then fine for chasing your toddler around. Trust me.
Included software
You aren't going to use anything that they include with the camera (at least until you start messing with RAW).
You are going to get your hands on Adobe Lightroom, Photoshop Express, or maybe full blown Photoshop.
There also are some other non Adobe competing products out there which are also good...
Forget about ANYTHING you can buy at BestBuy (unless it is from Adobe of course). For all sorts of reasons that I don't have time to go into here (maybe in a future blog) they are worthless. Again.. trust me.
Sensor Size
Most DSLRs that cost less then $2000 are what is called "crop" sensors. Their sensors are smaller then a piece of 35mm film. Camera
s that are the same size are called "full frame" and cost more then $2000. Smaller sensors cost less money to make, and thus the cameras are cheaper (and more compact). Mind you the crop sensors found in DSLRs are still much larger then what is typically found in a PS camera. The usual size is called 1.6x which means a full frame sensor is 1.6 times the size of the smaller sensor (in a nutshell). The sensor found in a PS camera is much smaller then that. These tiny sensors do not have excellent image quality overall.
Smaller sensors have another benefit in addition to price. Because of the physics behind it you get a telephoto effect. Basically that means whatever lens you attach will have slightly less wide angle, and slightly more telephoto. In the case of fixed length lenses they will be a little "longer" (more zoom) then what the lens actually is. Obviously that is just the basic idea..
One big drawback to smaller sensors is that their pixel density is much higher then their full frame counterparts. many more megapixels crammed into a small space. Due to the nature of physics this results in much more image sensor noise as compared to a lower pixel density. So.. if you crank up the ISO on a crop camera you will see significantly more image noise then compared to a more expensive full frame camera. Why do you care? Well if you are in low light you'll end up with grainy images.. or if you go to a wedding and do not use flash.. you'll end up with grainy images. Granted today's modern technology noise reduction software will help.. but it will be lossy. The #1 reason why people go full frame is to take advantage of the low imager noise.
So in general... the bigger the sensor the higher quality the images will be.. the lower the image noise will be.
I will also add that in my comparisons between my full frame 5DmkII and my crop 40D the full frame pictures have a much better dynamic range, color saturation, and over all beauty then with the 40D. There really is a difference beyond resolution and ISO.
Ok so that is what I got for you to start...
(and thank you to the various online locations that I stole the pictures and diagrams from.. you know who you are.. thanks!)
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Facebook Photo FAIL
So you know that fancy new photo viewer in Facebook? If you take a look on the bottom of it there is a link there for "Download"... and I bet you can guess what that means.
Yup.. you can download the full resolution version of the picture. Any one who can see your album can do that.
I think I am a little late to the game with this... It looks like it was rolled out sometime last year and I never noticed. There is no way to disable it.. and frankly it has me a bit concerned. I have no idea what the hell Facebook is thinking. It does not serve any purpose other then to further release your photographic work into the "free" domain. There should at least be a option to turn it off.
Everything I post to facebook is down sampled.. but still high res enough to produce 5x7s or so.. certainly not good ones.. but passable by most standards. I am not too worried about people on my friends list screwing me over.. but its a concern just the same.
I am not sure what I am going to do about this new knowledge. My knee jerk reaction is to just remove everything I have up that I really care about. I do have my SmugMug gallery and they seem to have added some facebook connectivity there... What I really want is to drive traffic to that site as opposed to keeping it on facebook.. But if I do that my new work would appear as links.. and likely result in fewer eyeballs viewing them... as opposed to easy to access facebook photos.
I don't know.. gotta think about it and do some google-research.
The bottom line is.. Facebook is not the place to publish your photographic work unless you don't mind your copyright and ownership being violated by anyone.... The average person has no clue on what ownership of a photo really means.. just as they don't understand the idea behind "licensing" usage of music, software, and so on. Because of that your average Facebook user will think nothing of downloading your pics.. printing them.. making them their screen savers... and distributing them to everyone they know.. after all if it was illegal they wouldn't have the download link right?? (wrong)
Yup.. you can download the full resolution version of the picture. Any one who can see your album can do that.
I think I am a little late to the game with this... It looks like it was rolled out sometime last year and I never noticed. There is no way to disable it.. and frankly it has me a bit concerned. I have no idea what the hell Facebook is thinking. It does not serve any purpose other then to further release your photographic work into the "free" domain. There should at least be a option to turn it off.
Everything I post to facebook is down sampled.. but still high res enough to produce 5x7s or so.. certainly not good ones.. but passable by most standards. I am not too worried about people on my friends list screwing me over.. but its a concern just the same.
I am not sure what I am going to do about this new knowledge. My knee jerk reaction is to just remove everything I have up that I really care about. I do have my SmugMug gallery and they seem to have added some facebook connectivity there... What I really want is to drive traffic to that site as opposed to keeping it on facebook.. But if I do that my new work would appear as links.. and likely result in fewer eyeballs viewing them... as opposed to easy to access facebook photos.
I don't know.. gotta think about it and do some google-research.
The bottom line is.. Facebook is not the place to publish your photographic work unless you don't mind your copyright and ownership being violated by anyone.... The average person has no clue on what ownership of a photo really means.. just as they don't understand the idea behind "licensing" usage of music, software, and so on. Because of that your average Facebook user will think nothing of downloading your pics.. printing them.. making them their screen savers... and distributing them to everyone they know.. after all if it was illegal they wouldn't have the download link right?? (wrong)
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
The Quiet before the.... Quiet? Storm? Who knows...
Things have been pretty quiet on the photography front.
CDP has been slow as it always is this time of year. The winter also has hampered my desire to get out and do photo work.. I know some are into the whole all season photography thing.. but I seriously hate the cold. I did do a bit here and there but I just wasn't about to go and drag my crap out in 20F weather... Everything is packed up in my back pack and ready to go the moment the temp rises a bit.. :)
Another thing which I just briefly mentioned last blog was that I am now very much re-involved with my other passion: music. The "bug" hit me again last year and I have ramped up my playing (I play bass guitar in case you didn't know) and now I play for two pro level bands in the area. I also have a 3rd project which is still in a nebulous state. So nearly every bit of my free time has been spent on practicing, learning material, rehearsals, etc. Things *will* slow down eventually once I am all caught up.. but who knows.
This how it usually is with me.. I cycle through my interests every few years. For the last 5 I have been totally serious about photography. Before that it was music... now I am back with music. That doesn't mean I am not doing my photo work anymore... no sir no sir no sir.. I am sure I'll still be very involved. Just not sure how many of my goals for this year will be accomplished. Some things will have to be put on the back burner.
So that being said... I have two trips to AZ on the books right now. However.. due to a variety of reasons I won't have much personal time. I am going to try (Again) to do some sunrise/set work during the week.. Hopefully with more success then the last trip. I have my prints of Sedona hanging in my office at work and I really wish I could go back there again... it was a wonderful experience. I envy those who have the time, $$, and resources, to travel around the country/globe doing photo expeditions.
In other news.. I am pretty happy about this.. my wife has begun working on becoming a "real" photographer. Most/All of you know she has been a critical/key part of CDP from the beginning. She pretty much quarterbacks all the photo sessions and does most of the posing work etc.. She also has a pretty good eye and some ability with journalistic styles. Now to that she is working on understand photography theory, DSLRs, etc. She has taken two really good classes at Unique photo, and now asks me all sorts of really good questions about stuff. I am hoping that (if everything goes well) she can take on more and more of the portrait work for CDP.. which will open up more avenues to us schedule wise.
Till next time...
CDP has been slow as it always is this time of year. The winter also has hampered my desire to get out and do photo work.. I know some are into the whole all season photography thing.. but I seriously hate the cold. I did do a bit here and there but I just wasn't about to go and drag my crap out in 20F weather... Everything is packed up in my back pack and ready to go the moment the temp rises a bit.. :)
Another thing which I just briefly mentioned last blog was that I am now very much re-involved with my other passion: music. The "bug" hit me again last year and I have ramped up my playing (I play bass guitar in case you didn't know) and now I play for two pro level bands in the area. I also have a 3rd project which is still in a nebulous state. So nearly every bit of my free time has been spent on practicing, learning material, rehearsals, etc. Things *will* slow down eventually once I am all caught up.. but who knows.
This how it usually is with me.. I cycle through my interests every few years. For the last 5 I have been totally serious about photography. Before that it was music... now I am back with music. That doesn't mean I am not doing my photo work anymore... no sir no sir no sir.. I am sure I'll still be very involved. Just not sure how many of my goals for this year will be accomplished. Some things will have to be put on the back burner.
So that being said... I have two trips to AZ on the books right now. However.. due to a variety of reasons I won't have much personal time. I am going to try (Again) to do some sunrise/set work during the week.. Hopefully with more success then the last trip. I have my prints of Sedona hanging in my office at work and I really wish I could go back there again... it was a wonderful experience. I envy those who have the time, $$, and resources, to travel around the country/globe doing photo expeditions.
In other news.. I am pretty happy about this.. my wife has begun working on becoming a "real" photographer. Most/All of you know she has been a critical/key part of CDP from the beginning. She pretty much quarterbacks all the photo sessions and does most of the posing work etc.. She also has a pretty good eye and some ability with journalistic styles. Now to that she is working on understand photography theory, DSLRs, etc. She has taken two really good classes at Unique photo, and now asks me all sorts of really good questions about stuff. I am hoping that (if everything goes well) she can take on more and more of the portrait work for CDP.. which will open up more avenues to us schedule wise.
Till next time...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)