# Sticky  The Official "I have a question about photography" Thread



## i_am_hydrogen

I agree that a tripod is the way to go if you want quality night shots. Nevertheless, you can still take decent hand-held shots provided you have a fast lens. 

Here's a thread of hand-held night shots taken with Canon's 50mm f/1.8. Some of them have focusing issues, which is to be expected considering it's a $90 lens, but there are quite a few keepers:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=136277

from that set, by Upward:


----------



## BuffCity

that 50mm f/1.8 seems like a good deal, I can only imagine how much better the f/1.4 works as far as focus. 

nice thing about SLRs is you have the option to make your lens collection reflect what you shoot...might be more expensive paying thousands for glass but try to shoot in low light situations at low ISO at a range of 200mm +...unless you have a good lens you can't do it.

Yea, a Nikon D40, D40x or D60 with a 50mm f/1.8 would be like...600$

not bad at all.


----------



## Raleigh-NC

BuffCity said:


> D60 is out!
> 
> decent price too as it comes with a VR lens for about $750 US


Nikon has also produced the 55-200mm lens with VR, too. I would assume the price for the kit with both lenses would be about $1000. I know that we are still talking about $700 being the available budget, but I would consider the "BillMeLater" option, which would allow me to send the $700 as a first payment and slowly pay off the rest. Or, got to Wolf/Ritz Camera and try for their credit card, which will allow you to buy this kit free of interest for 6-12 months. I think it would be worth it, for the quality, alone. I have done this for my Fuji S7000, my Nikon D50 and for my Nikon D200.


----------



## Sergei

I just got the 50mm f/1.8 myself! Seems great so far!


----------



## SpartaRoolz

Some of the noise can be taken out in post processing. photoshop calls it despeckle. it helps reduce the grain in the photos. You have to ask yourself what am i going to be taking night photos of. If you are taking pics in a bar, point and shoot with your flash. chances are you are drinking and tripods aren't going to do you any good in there. I like the suggestion about using a fence or available objects to rest the camera on.









1/4 second @ f/22 self timer, and resting on a fence.

However when you are using a flash, assuming that the object is close enough to the camera for the flash to actually work (about 15 feet for standard built in flash) The flash is what exposes the image. Set the flash to the "rear" and the end of the photo will be the clear exposed part.


----------



## Srakovski

*Hi There!*

I need some help Bought a canon powershot S5IS and im very excited about it since its my first time using such a camera. But ive encountered a few problems and I really hope you can help me

If I do not use auto mode and switch to other modes such as landscape, portrait, will the super steady shot feature be on? Cuz when I tried using the landscape mode, there weren't any "steadyshot" and my pictures turned out blur, how do I solve this problem?

Next question, When im using the auto mode, why is it that before i actually click to snap the picture (pressed halfway to focus), the picture becomes darker than the normal view?

I really hope you can help me answer these questions as it would be of great help to me and I will truly appreciate it Thanks!!


----------



## BuffCity

Srakovski said:


> I need some help Bought a canon powershot S5IS and im very excited about it since its my first time using such a camera. But ive encountered a few problems and I really hope you can help me
> 
> If I do not use auto mode and switch to other modes such as landscape, portrait, will the super steady shot feature be on? Cuz when I tried using the landscape mode, there weren't any "steadyshot" and my pictures turned out blur, how do I solve this problem?
> 
> Next question, When im using the auto mode, why is it that before i actually click to snap the picture (pressed halfway to focus), the picture becomes darker than the normal view?
> 
> I really hope you can help me answer these questions as it would be of great help to me and I will truly appreciate it Thanks!!


in many of the point and shoot cameras the IS function has to be set to each of the shooting features (landscape, auto, manual ect ect) when you are shooting in one of these modes look in the menu and see what options are turned on for this feature...Image stabilization should be one of them.

If thats not the case, see if perhaps you are shooting something too dark and might require more stabilization than what IS can provide. More than likely you should be able to just turn the feature on...but I'll let one of the Canon S-Series owners take it from here.


----------



## xzmattzx

Here is an example of a point-and-click picture at dawn. I took this using the default programmed settings: 800 ISO, lighting or whatever set at 0, no flash, and so on. I touched this up no more than I do any other picture. Does it look too grainy or are there ways to improve it? Would other settings like ISO 1600 be better?


----------



## BuffCity

I can see the noise where the street and sidewalk meet very easy. ISO 800 on your camera might be a little sensitive but thats at lower light. ISO 1600 would allow you to control the manual settings of the camera more but to double the noise (grain) would be easy to spot.

Can you fix this? I'm sure there are editing programs that can...to some degree but you won't get that crystal clear ISO 50-100 photo you are looking for.

Tripod....ISO 1600 on a DSLR will look better but you wanna carry a 3lb camera around your neck you might as well bring a 2lb tripod as well and do it right.


----------



## xzmattzx

So is a higher ISO or a lower ISO better in low light or at night when pointing and clicking? How about with a tripod?


----------



## BuffCity

lower ISO is ALWAYS better.

If you have to raise the ISO when shooting without a tripod, try to minimize it as much as possible...if you are shooting with a tripod you can simply keep ISO at the lowest the camera will go. ISO is light sensitivity, when there is any motion when taking a photo in low light conditions, the ISO elevation will allow the camera to compensate its shutter speed and f/ stop.


----------



## Lawcheehung

I'm terrible with photography and this question is probably really basic but how do you focus on something in the front while sort of blurring stuff from the back, and vice versa, here's an example from SpartaRoolz's rochester pictures. In this picture it's focused in the front and blurred out in the back. 

Is there camera setting that creates this affect.


----------



## Moolio

Lawcheehung said:


> I'm terrible with photography and this question is probably really basic but how do you focus on something in the front while sort of blurring stuff from the back, and vice versa, here's an example from SpartaRoolz's rochester pictures. In this picture it's focused in the front and blurred out in the back.
> 
> Is there camera setting that creates this affect.


There are three variables that define the depht of field of a photograph:
- size of aperture: bigger aperture translates to shallower field
- focal lenght of lens: longer focal lenght produces shallower field
- distance to focal plane: the nearer the focus to your camera, the shallower the field.

Compact digital cameras have such small sensors - and consequently short focal lenght lenses - that in most situations it is practically impossible to create a nice back- or fore-ground blur, but with a DSLR camera combined with a fast (i.e. large aperture) lens, you'll be able to get that effect.


----------



## BuffCity

Moolio nailed it...great answer.


----------



## Moolio

^^

thx, much appreciated.


----------



## xzmattzx

BuffCity said:


> lower ISO is ALWAYS better.
> 
> If you have to raise the ISO when shooting without a tripod, try to minimize it as much as possible...if you are shooting with a tripod you can simply keep ISO at the lowest the camera will go. ISO is light sensitivity, when there is any motion when taking a photo in low light conditions, the ISO elevation will allow the camera to compensate its shutter speed and f/ stop.


Does low ISO mean that there is a better chance of capturing movement and the accompanying bluriness? Or is that for higher ISO? Is the tradeoff that you can eliminate graininess with one thing, but will have a blurry picture if you don't have a tripod or fi there is too much movement?


----------



## Sergei

xzmattzx said:


> Does low ISO mean that there is a better chance of capturing movement and the accompanying bluriness? Or is that for higher ISO? Is the tradeoff that you can eliminate graininess with one thing, but will have a blurry picture if you don't have a tripod or fi there is too much movement?


It all depends on the light conditions.
But yes, typically, higher ISO will be more grainier, but freeze the action better in darker condition. It's a compromise. Depends on what you would rather have.

I would recommend that you use a higher ISO if you have any doubts. But only if it's necessary. Grain can be fixed, but blurriness can't.

I had this dilemma last week when I went to a concert. Of course it was quite dark in the place, but on a lower ISO, everything would be blurred. So I turned up my ISO, and it worked pretty well. I used NeatImage to reduce the grain. Here are some shots I got:


----------



## Raleigh-NC

Outstanding photos!!!


----------



## xzmattzx

These were taken with an 800 ISO and no tripod. I was just walking around at night and pointed and clicked. Are they good enough, or can I lower the ISO a little bit more and still get a clear picture if I hold the camera still enough?


----------



## i_am_hydrogen

^They're not bad at all. A bit of noise and some softness, but certainly usable. Another part of the equation, in addition to ISO, is shutter speed. Can you control shutter speed on your camera? What about aperture?


----------



## Gatis

Can I ask a question which is not photography related itself - rather about post-processing? About the magical buzz-word - *HDR* (High-Definition-Range)...

So I've got RAW picture. And I've got Photoshop CS3 with it's nice (?) automated "Merge to High Definition Range" tool.

I've been lazy and have not taken three pictures with different exposures for later merging. I take my single RAW file and make three pictures - one significantly brighter, one - original and one - significantly darker. And I merge them with that magical "Merge to HDR" tool.

...and the outcome is just sad... grainy (initial pic was not grainy), with low saturation and without a single bit of HDR magic in it... Can post results later, when at home computer.

How are your experiences with making HDR's?


----------



## SimFox

Actually many of the advantages of so-called pro cameras (I guess people mean dSLRs by that) are not so crucial at night and pocket cameras have one serious advantage - absence of any moving parts creating vibrations and hence blurred images with long exposures. All that is, naturally when you shoot from tripod. Without it no IS system will save you. 
Real PRO cameras are normally built a bit differently (from different materials) have better quality internal optics (prisms) and mostly higher grade mechanics. Some however have different/bigger sensors (compared to regular dSLR with crop factor 1,5-1,6 - roughly the size of APS film frame) of size of regular 35mm film frame. 
Probably the best camera currently available is Nikon D3. It cost a lot, but with that baby and IS (VR) lens you can very comfortably photograph at night with NO tripod as it has very clean image even at ISO 6400+. But this is exceptional camera and to make pictures that will be very popular on Urban Photo Contest you don't need it at all. In fact cheap pocket one will do you better there. Manufacturers make those with a regular customer in mind. Image is tailored to suit that regular person on the street. In fact many lay people when they first see image straight from really expensive camera are normally very disappointed because all the criteria they could think of when judging picture is how bright are colors and how sharp it is.
So just buy for you point and shooter a tripod. Any cheap one would do fine! And may be remote control if you camera didn't have it in the basic package.


----------



## walrus357

Gatis said:


> Can I ask a question which is not photography related itself - rather about post-processing? About the magical buzz-word - *HDR* (High-Definition-Range)...
> 
> So I've got RAW picture. And I've got Photoshop CS3 with it's nice (?) automated "Merge to High Definition Range" tool.
> 
> I've been lazy and have not taken three pictures with different exposures for later merging. I take my single RAW file and make three pictures - one significantly brighter, one - original and one - significantly darker. And I merge them with that magical "Merge to HDR" tool.
> 
> ...and the outcome is just sad... grainy (initial pic was not grainy), with low saturation and without a single bit of HDR magic in it... Can post results later, when at home computer.
> 
> How are your experiences with making HDR's?


have you done Tone Mapping??


----------



## xzmattzx

How does this picture look for point-and-click? I took it from my car while waiting at a traffic light. I brightened it a little bit, but nothing else to touch it up, really.

ISO 100, tungsten lighting, vivid colors, 1/4 (not sure what this is), F2.6 (not sure what this is), no flash.

What can I do to make this picture better? Something with the ISO, lighting, etc? Or, should I just hold the camera more still when taking the picture?


----------



## julesstoop

1/4 is the shutter speed in seconds. So the shutter between the lens and sensor was opened for a quarter of a second (which is basically too long if you don't use a tripod)

2.6 is the aperture. It means that the diameter of your lenze (controllable by changing the size of your diaphragm) was 2.6 times as small as the focal length (putting it very simple here)

Thing you can do to improve on this picture.
First, no amount of post-processing can save this particular picture. You couldn't hold the camera still enough to avoid moving it, besides that the focus seems to be off.

The picture is underexposed to such an extent that you'll never be able to recover any detail from many of the darker areas. To circumvent this you'll basicaly have to use an even longer shutter speed. For that you'll need a tripod or at least a very stable surface.

If you want to see more, next time try a higher ISO number. Neverwithstanding the fact that this introduces more noise, it makes your camera more sensitive to light so you can use a (relatively) shorter shutter speed. Pro camera's produce good pictures with ISO numbers of 1600 or even above, consumer gear however usually can't be pushed beyond 400.


----------



## xzmattzx

So I should think about making the ISO higher and the shutter speed a little bit higher, and keep the aperture lower? The shutter speed and aperture were the lowest that they could go, and the ISO was almost the lowest that it could go. My ISO can go to 1600, should I try that?


----------



## cbotnyse

xzmattzx said:


> So I should think about making the ISO higher and the shutter speed a little bit higher, and keep the aperture lower? The shutter speed and aperture were the lowest that they could go, and the ISO was almost the lowest that it could go. *My ISO can go to 1600, should I try that*?


I would say yes! Higher ISO works better at night, but I hate, and really never do, take night pictures without a tripod. I know its a pain in the ass to lug around but it makes all the difference. I dont recommend using a tripod while driving though.


----------



## xzmattzx

My camera works pretty well in automatic mode if I use a tripod. I want to get night pictures down in case I am out with friends and an opportunity for a quick picture comes up. For instance, I had several chances to take pictures on Bourbon Street in New Orleans while boozing with friends down there in December. Obviously, I am not going to stop reveling to pull out a tripod and take a series of photos; I want to take a quick picture if I see something that looks nice, then continue on with what I am doing. By the way, I am just saying this in general; this is not directed towards cbotnyse or anyone else.

I will try raising the ISO and keeping the shutter speed and aperture lower.


----------



## cbotnyse

xzmattzx said:


> I will try raising the ISO and keeping the shutter speed and aperture lower.


yeah try that, that is _generally_ the ideal settings for low light....also go out and shoot on a bunch of differnet settings and see what you get. Once you see the results you'll get a good idea of what you want when that moment comes up for a quick shot.


----------



## xzmattzx

I think I found the right settings, if I stand still enough. I can't remember what settings I had, and I think my camera goes to default when I change the batteries, but I think for these pictures, I had a high ISO (1600), low shutter speed (1/4), low aperture (2.6), with no flash.

Do these look good for point-and-click?


Unedited










Lightened up to see more detail











Now that I forget my setting and am beginning to second-guess myself, I will have to try this again and see if these specific settings work.


----------



## Moolio

They seem pretty normal to me for a camera with small photo receptors. Generally speaking, in lowlight photography the greatest problem as regards compact cameras is the limited dynamic range, which at ISO 1600 is even further reduced as a result of heavily deteriorated noise-to-signal ratio - that is, you get noise instead of tone gradation.


----------



## i_am_hydrogen

Matt, they're underexposed a bit. Try a narrower aperture (higher F number) for better sharpness (somewhere around F6-F11) as well as a slower shutter speed.


----------



## cbotnyse

i_am_hydrogen said:


> Matt, they're underexposed a bit. Try a narrower aperture (higher F number) for better sharpness (somewhere around F6-F11) as well as a slower shutter speed.


I agree, but any shutter slower than that will be really tough to pull of in holding it in your hands....but try it, I'd be interested to see what you get.


----------



## i_am_hydrogen

Oh, I didn't realize he was trying to take the shots hand-held. That exposure is probably as good as it'll get.


----------



## Xusein

I have a question. :hi:

I'm a novice with a disposable camera. I am in the process of deciding which digital camera to buy (I'm sick of the 1-hour photo thing). Does anyone know of a good, CHEAP digital camera for a beginner like me?

I have been looking at the Canon PowerShot A570 IS. Is this actually any good?


----------



## cbotnyse

10ROT said:


> I have a question. :hi:
> 
> I'm a novice with a disposable camera. I am in the process of deciding which digital camera to buy (I'm sick of the 1-hour photo thing). Does anyone know of a good, CHEAP digital camera for a beginner like me?
> 
> I have been looking at the Canon PowerShot A570 IS. Is this actually any good?


whats your price range? if its just a point and shoot I recommend the Samsung NV10.


----------



## Xusein

Thanks for the suggestion! 

I pretty much don't want to spend above $200. That camera that you posted looks great! I actually have not seen that in the stores around here. Looks sleek and it seems to have good features...I may be able to pay a little extra for that.


----------



## xzmattzx

10ROT said:


> I have a question. :hi:
> 
> I'm a novice with a disposable camera. I am in the process of deciding which digital camera to buy (I'm sick of the 1-hour photo thing). Does anyone know of a good, CHEAP digital camera for a beginner like me?
> 
> I have been looking at the Canon PowerShot A570 IS. Is this actually any good?


I have this camera, and I like it. Some recent photo threads of mine were with this camera ("Wide Pittsburgh" was, "Wilmington's Trinity Vicinity" wasn't, "Lockport NY" wasn't, "Kenton DE" was, "Mount Morris NY" was, "Princeton NJ" wasn't), so you can see what pictures end up looking like.

The things that I don't like about the camera are 1) that the "low battery" signal doesn't work. I read about this in user comments on newegg.com (where I got my camera), and it was true. The camera indicates low batteries even if you put them in not too long ago and have only taken 10 or 20 pictures. You have to ignore it and carry back-up batteries once in a while so that you are not caught with a camera that doesn't work. Sometimes to colors seem too vivid, at least to me. The contrast between colors can look odd, but maybe that's because I'm used to my cheaper camera mixing white clouds with blue sky if I wasn't taking a picture away from the Sun.

In all, I am happy with it. Someone on here recommended newegg.com and suggested that I wait for a nice deal to come along. I waited about a week and a deal for that camera came up: the camera, a carrying case, rechargeable batteries, a 1 GB memory card, and a pocket tripod, all for $230 (including shipping, I believe). Best Buy was selling the camera only, on sale, for $230 the week before. Newegg.com was also very fast in delivering the camera. I would recommend newegg.com.


----------



## Xusein

Thanks for the detailed insight, much appreciated. 

The Canon PowerShot A570 IS and the Samsung NV10 are up on my list of choices.


----------



## xzmattzx

Okay, I have beaten the "night pictures" discussion to death, at least for a while. I have a question about some daytime pictures, now.

In the below picture (from Philadelphia, if anyone wants to know where), I took a picture of a church. Behind it are skyscrapers. The light hitting the glass makes the skyscrapers, both to the left and in the center, seem to disappear. How do I get this to not happen?


----------



## Sergei

xzmattzx said:


> Okay, I have beaten the "night pictures" discussion to death, at least for a while. I have a question about some daytime pictures, now.
> 
> In the below picture (from Philadelphia, if anyone wants to know where), I took a picture of a church. Behind it are skyscrapers. The light hitting the glass makes the skyscrapers, both to the left and in the center, seem to disappear. How do I get this to not happen?


This is a pretty common problem, and you can't really do anything to prevent it, the range of the camera just can't cover all the different gradations of light, so it has to choose what to expose correctly. In this case, you focused on the church, therefore it came out fine.

Two things you can do to fix it:
1. HDR ... a topic on it's own.
2. Expose for the brightest parts (skyscrapers in the back, in your case). Once that is exposed correctly, the church will be underexposed, but you can try to bring some of the detail back in post-processing. It's easier to get detail out of underexposed parts, than the overblown ones. But it will increase noise in the underexposed parts.

Hope this helps! Good luck!


----------



## xzmattzx

Is it possible to create a panorama by using Infranview? How do I do this? Or, do I need to get anther program to make panoramas? What is a good program for this that is free?


----------



## Chicagophotoshop

xzmattzx said:


> Is it possible to create a panorama by using Infranview? How do I do this? Or, do I need to get anther program to make panoramas? What is a good program for this that is free?


take a look through these....there are quite a few good programs that do not cost much at all.

http://www.download.com/3120-20_4.html?tg=dl-20&qt=panoramic&tag=srch

I use ArcSoft Panorama Maker. and shot this just yesterday


----------



## invincible

Autostitch is nice and simple, but the free version doesn't come with much functionality. It does enough to make a nice panorama though.

I can also recommend Hugin which is pretty powerful but is harder to learn. You can use it for other tasks such as perspective correction.

Some tools get amazingly good output with little user intervention, and even using differently exposed pictures or pictures from lenses which suffer from falloff (getting darker towards the edges).


----------



## dösanhoro

I am planning getting into taking photos more seriously. I have used small digital camera where the memories of the scenes were always good but the photos not. I like to take photos from harder than average places. It's of course not on top of the Mount Everest but still these cameras are too fragile for me. One big lens where the cover gets of by itself. hno: I am not comfortable using that when there is always fear of scratches on a very expensive camera. Is there a solution to this? A camera where you can change the lens. Some kind of lens cover? This is a big mental handicap really 

Used a bicycle for transport when taking photos. Problem: After a few hours my hands shake a little so taking photos gets harder. I have always the feeling the biggest shake is caused by me pressing the button. I have tried negating this by pressing the button slowly bu building up pressure but I am not satisfied. Even tried to adjust me taking photos to my heartrate and breathing. Is there a timer where pressing the button causes the thing to take photos 0.2 seconds later or gets the photo taken at the moment??? A better button perhaps? I have started put my small camera on ledges or on a tripod and using the group photo feature. But this really bothers me when taking photos by hand and makes taking photos a hand breathing coordination excercise. 

I am thankful for any advice.


----------



## dösanhoro

No answer to my problems. I'm not really surprised. But I still think the press a button thing is bad as it seems to cause most of the unsharpness. I need to keep trying


----------



## xzmattzx

I ended up using that ArcSoft Panorama Maker. I wish you could get your picture in bigger than 1/16th for free; 1/10th would've been fine. Oh well. Here's what I came up with. It looks nice.


----------



## aleph_null

@dösanhoro 
have you considered getting a tripod? then again, going by what you have said, the tripod probably wouldn't be suitable for your work, but it's a great alternative to shaky hands. that, or getting a lens with IS/VR or what have you. that also depends on the camera you're using. some of the camera manufacturers excluding Nikon and Canon now mount the Image Shake Reduction within the camera body, thus cutting the cost of expensive glass, and having the IS/VR type of thing on at all times (personally, i' not a fan of this, it has some significant drawbacks, but whatever... let's not get into this now). 

as for shooting the pics... do what snipers do (or so i heard). the moment you press the shutter button, hold your breath. certainly works for me.

@xzmattzx
have you tried using PTGui? i love it, and it's a great software. i recommend it 100%


----------



## la wood

*i need help*

i took a picture yesterday and some came out like this...




























what cause this problem or any suggestion(s) on how to prevent this problem from happening? thanks...


----------



## dösanhoro

hazardously_wasted thank you 

I am looking into cameras and photography right now. Models I have looked into right now are Fuji s5800 Finepix and also Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ8. One of them I know is available at the the same price as most of those typical cameras sized like a pack of cards. From the S5800 2003 variant I have seen take good pictures. Those are probably not the best considering what people have here and on the cheaper side. I don't like the digital zooms as they are very fragile in my experience and and would want to get a lens which can be changed. Want to change options easy not with a crappy menu system. As for the stabilization I am looking into it and wonder how much of a difference would it make when taking pictures on a sunny day by hand. Plan to use one of those tiny tripods, hope it compensates somewhat for the lack of funds when taking pictures.


----------



## friedemann

Does someone know whatfor these light blue stickers or labels on some threads are?


----------



## Medo

la wood, looks like the sensor on your camera is messed up.

friedemann those are tags.


----------



## la wood

Medo said:


> la wood, looks like the sensor on your camera is messed up.
> 
> thanks a lot medo.by the way i'm leaving for florida tomorrow to attend a wedding and take some picture (not as professional photographer), if I'll get the same result then i knew where the problem is coming from.
> 
> to have it repair or get a new one? any suggestion???


----------



## bylove

*I'm new at this, can someone help?*

I need to show this led finger light with a white background. But the light needs to be on and show a little color on that white background. If I just use a brush and white out some area around the light hitting the table then it does not look very good. I want to make a great looking photo to put on the front of this website. I would appreciate any help at all. There is a photo now on the front of this website www.lducompany.com of the finger light but they want me to change it to have a white back ground but show the color light. Thank you.

:cheers:


----------



## ØlandDK

I wanna by my first DSLR camera anytime soon and after I tried the Canon EOS 450D a couple of times I prettty much felt in love with it. But now I see that there'll soon come a Canon EOS 1000D which is pretty much a downgrade of the 450D and slightly cheaper (around 180€ cheaper). So I wanted to ask you guys if you think that the 450D will be worth the extra money?

EOS 1000D: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon_1000d/

EOS 450D: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos450d/

...and I also wanted to know if the kid-lens would be good enough to begin with. I read both positive and negative reviews of it. 

EF-S 18-55mm IS: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_18-55_3p5-5p6_is_c16/


----------



## Chicagophotoshop

dösanhoro said:


> I am planning getting into taking photos more seriously. I have used small digital camera where the memories of the scenes were always good but the photos not. I like to take photos from harder than average places. It's of course not on top of the Mount Everest but still these cameras are too fragile for me. One big lens where the cover gets of by itself. hno: I am not comfortable using that when there is always fear of scratches on a very expensive camera. Is there a solution to this? A camera where you can change the lens. Some kind of lens cover? This is a big mental handicap really
> 
> Used a bicycle for transport when taking photos. Problem: After a few hours my hands shake a little so taking photos gets harder. I have always the feeling the biggest shake is caused by me pressing the button. I have tried negating this by pressing the button slowly bu building up pressure but I am not satisfied. Even tried to adjust me taking photos to my heartrate and breathing. Is there a timer where pressing the button causes the thing to take photos 0.2 seconds later or gets the photo taken at the moment??? A better button perhaps? I have started put my small camera on ledges or on a tripod and using the group photo feature. But this really bothers me when taking photos by hand and makes taking photos a hand breathing coordination excercise.
> 
> I am thankful for any advice.







dösanhoro said:


> No answer to my problems. I'm not really surprised.



ya no kidding. I have no ieda what you are asking :nuts:


----------



## christos-greece

^^ Something like this, perhaps (??):
(The original pic is from www.iducompany.com)


----------



## Taller Better

I will move this to the "I have a question about Photography" thread.


----------



## MILIUX

ØlandDK said:


> I wanna by my first DSLR camera anytime soon and after I tried the Canon EOS 450D a couple of times I prettty much felt in love with it. But now I see that there'll soon come a Canon EOS 1000D which is pretty much a downgrade of the 450D and slightly cheaper (around 180€ cheaper). So I wanted to ask you guys if you think that the 450D will be worth the extra money?
> 
> EOS 1000D: http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canon_1000d/
> 
> EOS 450D: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos450d/
> 
> ...and I also wanted to know if the kid-lens would be good enough to begin with. I read both positive and negative reviews of it.
> 
> EF-S 18-55mm IS: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_18-55_3p5-5p6_is_c16/


In my honest opinion, i would get a 1000D and use that saving to buy a better lens. 24-70mm f/2.8 is a very nice lens and will last you for several years. There is not a big difference to 450D and 1000D except for the size. If you have a very strong grip and can live with smaller camera body, then go with 1000D.

There is no point of getting the whiz-bang camera body because it will be updated every year. Lens takes years to be fully updated and it lasts for such a long time because it is less electronic.


----------



## friedemann

> friedemann those are tags.


Yes, ok. And what shall these tags signalize, what's their function?


----------



## invincible

Digital zoom isn't really a feature though. It's just available in compacts for all the people who use their photos exactly how it comes out of the camera because they are unable to do basic editing on a computer.

Photoshop (or basically any image editor) gives you the power of infinite digital zoom.


----------



## xzmattzx

Thanks for all of the help on the digital zoom. It looks like I'll get the A590 then.


----------



## dattebayo

need help

how can I put the guy in front of the car? is it possible?  I just can't figure it out. by the way, Im using GIMP as my software. Thanks in advance


----------



## aleph_null

i dont have GIMP, but there should be some type of Marquee tool (or ideally a Pen tool) that you can use to crop out the person from the second photo. then just copy and paste him and you're done.


----------



## dattebayo

^^ thanks. By the way, what kind of pen tool should I use? another question, I have a dslr and wanted to know the best setting for night shots without having any noise.

Is aperture best suited for night shots?


----------



## aleph_null

whatever pen tool you have with gimp should be fine. just define the path and copy the selected area. keep in mind that i am speaking from the Photoshop perspective, so this could be a bit different in Gimp, but essentially it should work the same. i'm sure you can google some tutorials on how to select a custom shaped object in Gimp. 

as for the camera settings, there's more to it then just setting your mode dial to A, S, P or M. personally, i'd suggest going with M, and manually selecting your aperture and exposure settings. it depends on the light available (duh). if you have a tripod, even better; or at least a VR/IS lens is a must. to minimize the noise, keep your ISO in a range of 50-200 (depending on a camera, but 200 is a maximum i ever use). next select your f-stop, and shutter accordingly. and fire away. there's no one good setting that fits all night shots. it depends what kind of effect you are trying to achieve, as well as what you're shooting (streets, night sky, moon, buildings, a house party on a deck, etc). just go out there and take few shots. see what works, and what doesn't. good luck.


----------



## invincible

It's easy with DSLRs anyway - there's a screen on the back for you to look at the pictures. Set the ISO as low as your patience allows, turn off VR/IS if using a tripod, pick an aperture (f/8 or thereabouts will get the most sharpness out of most lenses) and guess at the shutter speed (this becomes easy after a while). Low ISO isn't always suitable - for example, if the shutter speed is 15 seconds and you're taking a photo on a street where people are walking past, you'll get murky ghosts everywhere. Boost up the ISO (or open up the aperture) and reduce the shutter speed accordingly and the people will take a more defined form - there's still motion blur but it will be more pleasing to the eye.

It's all trial and error really, it's something to do over a few different days and you can just experiment until something looks good. You could learn all the theory, which is good to know, but personally I found it more fun to mess around with things and then read about the theory some other time. You just need to know some basics like the relationship between shutter speed, aperture and ISO. Or not even - just put it into P or A and use the exposure compensation switch and it will do the calculations for you.


----------



## xzmattzx

Is there any way to get rid of the spot on my lens? I am pretty sure it's on the inside, I've wiped the lens a couple times and nothing changed. It's creating little marks in my pictures (look at the very center, then look slightly up and right). Is this a piece of dirt or dust? If I bring it to a camera store, will it be a simple fix?


----------



## aleph_null

^the camera store won't touch it. i tell you this right now. if anything, they'll take your camera for a month and send it to a third party company. 

it doesn't look like dust. it looks like a smudge of some sort. what solution do you use to clean your lens? i'd suggest using cleaning kits from: http://www.copperhillimages.com/ make sure it's not your sensor (use different lens, take a shot.. if you see the same smudge, then it's your sensor, and not a lens).


----------



## invincible

EXIF data says the photo is from a point-and-shoot, so changing the lens might be hard.

It's definitely not sensor dust because that would appear as well defined speck instead of a slightly dark blob on a point-and-shoot. Some camera stores might be able to help - one of the large stores here has its own servicing department. But that's no different from having it sent to a third party for repair.


----------



## xzmattzx

hazardously_wasted said:


> ^the camera store won't touch it. i tell you this right now. if anything, they'll take your camera for a month and send it to a third party company.
> 
> it doesn't look like dust. it looks like a smudge of some sort. what solution do you use to clean your lens? i'd suggest using cleaning kits from: http://www.copperhillimages.com/ make sure it's not your sensor (use different lens, take a shot.. if you see the same smudge, then it's your sensor, and not a lens).


I usually use a wet piece of toilet paper, then dry it with toilet paper. I treat the lens like the glasses that I wear at night.

The spot appeared while on a boat tour out on Lake Michigan. I wonder if some little piece of sand got in and ruined it.

Unfortunately, it may be the sensor. My camera's a basic point-and-click camera, though, so I don't know if I can try another lens.

I will definitely have to take advantage of the warranty for this.



invincible said:


> EXIF data says the photo is from a point-and-shoot, so changing the lens might be hard.
> 
> It's definitely not sensor dust because that would appear as well defined speck instead of a slightly dark blob on a point-and-shoot. Some camera stores might be able to help - one of the large stores here has its own servicing department. But that's no different from having it sent to a third party for repair.


Sometimes is does appear as a speck (more like a little star), depending on if I zoom in a lot or not. I'm at work right now, but I'll try to find a picture of this when I am at home.


----------



## He Named Thor

I have a question for the photo gods. I've been trying to take some car-in-a-parking-garage-at-night photos, but they've been turning out orangeish yellow. 








As if the garage is on Mars. I've played around with the different settings, though there aren't many, and this is still the best I can get. I've even tried a different garage. I've got a Fujifilm Finepix Z20. Is it something I'm doing wrong/can do, or is it the camera?


----------



## xzmattzx

I blame the lighting itself. The sun emits "white" light; these lightbulbs are emitting yellow light. You need to find a place with white light bulbs.


----------



## aleph_null

change the white balance. alternatively you can edit the white balance inside Photoshop/Lightroom

this is a one click fix:


----------



## i_am_hydrogen

Switch your white balance to tungsten.


----------



## xzmattzx

I never realized that you could change the white balance to fix something like this. I guess that's why I'm not an expert.


----------



## Toronto Macedonian

Hi everyone, I have a question regarding night photography. How do I adjust my digital camera to take clear photos in a dark/night environment? Thanks.


----------



## SirAdrian

A few tips regarding that, though i'm by no means an expert:

1) Place your camera on a still, flat object (e.g. a wall), or better yet use a tripod.

2) If your camera allows it, manually set it to an appropriate exposure time. ½s - 1s can be enough in many cases. You can keep ISO low, if you're exposing long enough, and thus get less noise.

3) If it's very dark or your object of interest is very far away (e.g. a city skyline) your camera might have issues autofocusing. Even point-and-shoots tend to offer manual focusing now, so make use of that in those cases.


----------



## Aliya

Hi,

I have a Nikon D60 with the kit lense. I want to experiment with night-time photography such as in nightclubs.
I have been reading about this type of photography and I am aware I will need a flash gun (or maybe new lense or diffuser)

Can someone please help me out to pick the right type of flash to get pictures that resemble ones from below with the background still illumite but the faces of people clear

(i have 'borrowed' these from a club photo site in Israel)




























Of course, I do not want to spend too much money 

Thanks!


----------



## SuburbanWalker

[edit] the question probably belonged in the other thread.


----------



## Ramses

xzmattzx said:


> Is there any way to get rid of the spot on my lens? I am pretty sure it's on the inside, I've wiped the lens a couple times and nothing changed. It's creating little marks in my pictures (look at the very center, then look slightly up and right). Is this a piece of dirt or dust? If I bring it to a camera store, will it be a simple fix?


I've got the same problem. A little spot inside my lens which creates darker, blurred spots on the upper side of my pictures. It is especially visible on pictures with blue skies. 

The employees of the camera store won't fix this, because they have to open the camera completely. They will send it to the factory. That means i loose my camera for several months and the price of the repair is almost higher than the price of a new camera.

But i wanted to buy a new camera anyways. I was searching for a good reason, and now i have it.


----------



## aleph_null

Aliya said:


> Hi,
> 
> I have a Nikon D60 with the kit lense. I want to experiment with night-time photography such as in nightclubs.
> I have been reading about this type of photography and I am aware I will need a flash gun (or maybe new lense or diffuser)
> 
> Can someone please help me out to pick the right type of flash to get pictures that resemble ones from below with the background still illumite but the faces of people clear
> 
> Of course, I do not want to spend too much money
> 
> Thanks!


for nightclubs you will definitely need a strobe. i would strongly suggest getting the SB-800, but SB-600 will do just fine if you want to save some extra cash. (SB-900 is an overkill, but if you want the latest and greatest then by all means get it)
by kit lens i assume you mean the 18-55 VR? it'll do just fine as long as you use the flash. you might want to upgrade the lens later on if the images don't come out as crisp as you might want them to be. a cheap alternative would be to get the 50mm prime lens, but with 1.5 crop on Nikon camera, 50mm might be too long in some situations.


----------



## Aliya

^^ thank you!! i'll try the SB-800 out and the 50mm looks great plus its not too expensive!


----------



## invincible

I love the 50mm lens. The only problem is that if you're in a confined space, you're restricted to head shots of one person at a time.

The SB-600 is great too. Mine broke and is now permanently attached to a film body, but I bought the SB-800 which costs a lot more. It's useful if you need all the extra features like functioning as a remote master (note: the D70/D80/some others have this capability built in) or the PC socket but it's only a bit more powerful than the SB-600, which has a much simpler interface and has a superior battery life from my observations.


----------



## no1gizmo

Can anybody recommand me a digital camera for about 300 Euro?

I *dont need *Video&Micro, just need good *outdoor fotos* (day & night)!


----------



## aleph_null

this is based on my personal bias:
Panasonic LX3 > Canon G10 > Nikon P6000 > Canon SD880 IS > Canon SD 790 IS 

and i would strongly recommend reading these:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q408enthusiastgroup/
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q408premiumgroup/
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q408slimgroup/
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q408budgetgroup/


----------



## MILIUX

For nighttime you need wide aperture & quality sensor. 

It's either:
Panasonic LX3 (wide aperture)
Sigma DP1 (full frame sensor & quality imaging)


----------



## MikaGe

Could anybody share a comprehensive tutorial on creating Lomo effects with Photoshop? 

I have this image via CameraBag application in my phone. The effect used is "Instant"


...and here is the original one. I'm kinda stuck choosing which adjustment layer to be applied :bash:


----------



## aleph_null

this is for Photoshop LR:
http://www.lightroomkillertips.com/2008/presets-lomo-arigato-mr-robota-version-2/


----------



## psyche_ot

Hi guys! Could anybody help or show mehow to post pics.. I can't seem to locate the attachment option whenever i want to post a reply or start anew thread..many thanks in advance..


----------



## Quall

psyche_ot said:


> Hi guys! Could anybody help or show mehow to post pics.. I can't seem to locate the attachment option whenever i want to post a reply or start anew thread..many thanks in advance..


For your own images:

You need to first host your image (try Imageshack, or Photobucket for multiple hosting).

On Imageshack - click "choose file". Find the image, and use the resize feature if necessary. Press "host it!". When the page loads (should take a while), uncheck "include details" under the thumbnail, and copy the first link after that check box. Copy the link and paste it on SSC.

For other images online:

Simply copy the URL of the image, and paste the link on SSC between







.

If you don't feel like typing the IMG tags, just click the







button in advanced post, and paste the link there. It should automatically tag it.

Hope that helped


----------



## psyche_ot

Quall said:


> For your own images:
> 
> You need to first host your image (try Imageshack, or Photobucket for multiple hosting).
> 
> On Imageshack - click "choose file". Find the image, and use the resize feature if necessary. Press "host it!". When the page loads (should take a while), uncheck "include details" under the thumbnail, and copy the first link after that check box. Copy the link and paste it on SSC.
> 
> For other images online:
> 
> Simply copy the URL of the image, and paste the link on SSC between
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> If you don't feel like typing the IMG tags, just click the
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> button in advanced post, and paste the link there. It should automatically tag it.
> 
> Hope that helped


many thanks. greatly appreciated.. have tried it but from my flickr account..


----------



## spyk

I had a question about making photographs look vintage and old.

I saw these photographs. They are recent but taken from an old Nikon FE and they look vintage and cool. Nostalgia. Amazing.

Here is the link:

http://picasaweb.google.com/interdigitate/Munich2008#

Is it possible to take these kinds of vintage photos on new digital SLRs?

Could you do it on photoshop?

I was thinking of getting an old Nikon 35mm film camera from ebay to get these kinds of photos. Perhaps something like the F3 with Autofocus? 
Or would I get such old looking shots from all film cameras even newer ones.

Any ideas?

Thanks!


----------



## aleph_null

spyk said:


> Could you do it on photoshop?
> 
> Thanks!


http://www.google.com/search?q=vint...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a


----------



## Wulff

Hello 

This is my first post here. Been browsing for forums for a long time now.
Seeing alot of great photographs of skylines, buildings, environments, etc.

All of this stuff gave me the push to do this stuff myself aswell instead of just regular holiday photographs.

Now my question is:
What would be a good camera to begin with. I was thinking of the Canon ESO 1000D. But I dont know if I also need a good lens with it to begin with, or just get a good camera and look for accessories later on.

Anyone got some good advice for me what to start with and if the Canon EOS 100D is actually good to start with?

Thank you in advance 

Ps. I dont have to much money to start with, looking for something below 1000 euro's, maybe a little bit more I can be able to manage 

Kind regards

- Wulff


----------



## i_am_hydrogen

Good glass is more important than a camera body. As someone once said: "Bodies come and go, but glass is forever." A quality lens will have much more of an impact on your photography than a body, unless you're able to buy something really expensive (Canon 1D, Canon 5D II, Canon 5D, etc.). Glass also keeps its resale value for considerably longer than a body. The 1000D would be a solid starter camera, and you'd still have enough money left over for a nice L lens. What type of subject matter are you going to shoot? Do you want a wide-angle lens? A telephoto?

Here's a list of all the Canon lenses and their price tags (note: some of the prices listed haven't been updated in a while, so make sure to double-check)
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406


----------



## Wulff

Thank you for your quick answer 

The main subjects I will be taking photographs of will be the buildings itself (inside and outside) and skylines.
These will be my main subjects because of my education (constructions and architecture)

Since I dont know wich lens is the best to get/start with.
How do I know wich lens is good to get and wich arent, or wich one is best to go for first?
Are there good books about this? (If so, please advice some  )

PS. This is the first time I actually want to start doing this. So I dont know that much about it 
I used to just draw stuff, from pictures, photographs or when I was looking at the building/subject. Instead of taking the pictures myself.

Kind regards

- Wulff


----------



## urbanyte

Are you dedicated to Canon? If it's your very (D)SLR, then also take a look at Nikon, the D40 and D60 are both massive bargains now.

How much are you looking to spend on glass? The kit 18-55mm will suffice for most situations unless you're planning to shoot indoors or in low light conditions. Generally for starters, a 18-55mm lens coupled with a 55-200mm (or equivalent) is recommended. If you aren't keen on changing lenses or just want a solid walkaround lens (which would be similar to owning a compact camera), then a lens in the 18-200mm is the way to go even though they often have compromises in image quality.

Either way, all DSLRs on the market today are capable of taking great pictures, it's just like anything else where you need to learn your equiptment and before you know it, you'll be getting good results.


----------



## STLCardsBlues1989

1. Anybody else use Paint.net? Just curious.

2. Do these images look edited or enhanced to you? They're not. I've done nothing with them. But I always thought they looked edited or something.


----------



## urbanyte

^^ Haven't used Paint.net but it has been referred to as another product for people to try alongside GIMP for people who need the image editing capability but don't have/can't afford photoshop. Those pics don't really look edited btw, they look like some nice out of camera jpg.


----------



## 3tmk

I've got some questions about printing photos on posters.
I have some neat photos taken with my 10mp camera, and I wonder how big I could make the prints without having noticeable quality problems.
It'll be for myself so I don't need the best, but I don't want it to be crappy either.


----------



## Ivanski

It's best to check for some not so big graphic design studio , i've tried it and it works  they could pull it on a big poster but usually don't like the idea of just a single print.


----------



## spyk

I wanted to ask about basic photo editing/fixing, after you've taken the pictures.

I mean like you upload the photos on your computer, you dont want to make any major changes, you just want to fix them a little.

1. What do people think of the "auto-fix" features in the Windows vista picture viewer and in photoshop? Which of the two are better? Or is there a better alternative?

2. Also, if one was to make small manual adjustments, is it better to use photoshop or like the Windows vista picture viewer?


----------



## ØlandDK

Adobe Lightning Room is pretty simple and usefull.


----------



## spyk

Is it the best one that you'd recommend?


----------



## aleph_null

if you shot with Nikon camera, then Capture NX is also a viable option (it's cheaper then LR). but if you can, go with the LR.


----------



## spyk

Yea, it was Nikon D40.

By the way, I tried the old Microsoft Photo Editor's AutoBalance, it does an amazing job, makes photos look amazing! Has anyone tried it?


----------



## xzmattzx

I'm looking to get a new set of rechargeable batteries. I've been using the Panasonic BQ-390 for a few years now, and I have definitely gotten a full life's worth out of them. What rechargeable batteries are the best? I'll switch from Panasonic if there's something way better out there. I've gotten other rechargeable batteries as freebies before and they weren't as good as the panasonic ones.


----------



## aleph_null

batteries - get these

charger - in case you need a new one


----------



## xzmattzx

$25 for batteries and $70 for the recharger is a lot of money. Are all rechargeable batteries that expensive? I know that like any other product, I'll get what I pay for, but I didn't realize that prices can get that high. I've been lucky enough that I have never paid for rechargeable batteries; I've either gotten them as gifts or as freebies in orders.


----------



## aleph_null

you did ask what are the best batteries out there  and yes, rechargeable batteries do cost a bit more. if you don't need 8 batteries, get the 4-pack instead. or, go with Duracell brand. significantly cheaper then MAHA, with only a little less power. but, if you're short on money and looking for the absolute best deal, then i'd consider these. i've used Sony before, and they're not too bad. good luck.


----------



## urbanyte

So time to upgrade for me, I'm looking at the Canon XSi and at Nikon cameras with the budget being up to $1000. The Nikon lens offerings are very good with a cheap kit being the D60 with 18-55 and 55-200mm, but the lack of the AF motor seems a little worrying (not that I mind manual focusing though). The Canon lineup offers very good cameras for the price range I'm looking at, but the price gap between the basic lenses and the better glass seems to be rather sizable. The only requirements are the sensor cleaning function and fast access between shutter speed and aperture settings (a dedicated ISO button would be nice, but I don't change ISO all that often). Most of the photos will be portraits, macro, low-light, landscape, architecture and from time to time various action shots.

What are my options? Do any of the entry level DSLRs have a customizable button that can quickly bring up shutter speed?

Edit : This could have gone into the DSLR user's corner, but it's a question so....


----------



## spyk

What about the Nikon D5000?

Plus if you want fast action shots using flash, go for the Nikon D40, it has something at such a good price which most cameras lack, a flash sync speed of 1/500 seconds.


----------



## urbanyte

Just checked out the D5000, sounds brilliant.... any idea when the release is going to be? The price is good but it really depends on when it comes out. The D40's nice, just the 3 AF points is a little limiting.

I'm on the semi-pro level (have a very deep understanding of how everything works on a camera as well as how to take many types of photos) but have never used a DSLR before.


----------



## aleph_null

^it comes out on May 1, but some retailers (such ad Best Buy) might have it sooner then that.


----------



## urbanyte

aleph_null said:


> ^it comes out on May 1, but some retailers (such ad Best Buy) might have it sooner then that.


Thanks! Will check it out :cheers:


----------



## diskojoe

just bought a alpha 200 by sony. was wondering if any body had any tips for using it.


----------



## Xusein

Does anyone know how to make those cool crazy HDR effects on photos without paying a lot for programs like Photoshop, etc?

I want to make some for some of my existing photos but I don't have the $$$ for Photoshop.


----------



## ZZ-II

Photomatix ^^, alot cheaper than Photoshop


----------



## Ni3lS

^ Crack the programs, and everything is free


----------



## Xusein

Thanks for the answers, guys.


----------



## ØlandDK

I think Photomatix is one of the most used programs for it.


----------



## xzmattzx

For those of you that helped me with the spot on my camera lens (see page 7), I finally got around to calling Canon and getting them to take care of it. I did this in early May. It turned out that the pane was chipped, and they replaced the aperture. The total cost for me was $5, which is what I paid to have it mailed there, since it was covered by the warranty. The repair was free and they mailed it back on their own money. It was actually very quick to repair; I mailed it out on a Monday, and received it about a week later, on a Tuesday. They sent an e-mail on Thursday saying that they received it, so they fixed it and mailed it back to me all from Thursday to Tuesday. I was impressed.

For anyone looking for a good camera with great customer service, I definitely recommend Canon. They were great to deal with.


----------



## AltinD

What do you guys think of the new SIGMA 18-250 OS HSM ?










I have a Canon 450D


----------



## ØlandDK

Looks like a interesting lens - only review I could find was this one:
http://www.canonblogger.com/2009/06/08/hardware-review-sigma-18-250/
...I'm also looking for a new lens to my 450D and was also considering this one. But I'll wait untill I've seen some "better" reviews.


----------



## He Named Thor

How do you go about figuring out prices for the photos that you sell? I'm creating a portfolio to take with me to some art galleries, and I've been told to figure out some prices. Also that many around here will want something like 40%.


----------



## aleph_null

40%? dang it.. that's a big cut, IMO

figure out how much it cost you to print each photo (if you order your prints online or at a local printing lab, you already know the price for each print) + price of frames for each photo. 

ex.
say, $20 for a print, and $20 for a frame. if you sell your print at $80:
$32 goes to the gallery (40%)
$40 covers your charges
$8 - your profit

so, the basic formula would be something like this:

P = [z+(x+y)]/(.6)

where:
P - price you would charge for the photo
z - the profit you'd like to make on the photo
x - price for printing 
y - price of the frame

here's where i got the formula from:

P = P(.4) + z + (x+y)

combine like terms, and we get:

P(.6) = z + (x+y)

and from this, the formula follows:

P = [z+(x+y)]/(.6)

hope this helps. if the gallery instead asks you for 35% cut (or whatever), then just substitute that into equation and work it out.

ex. 
so at $20/print and $20/frame, at 40% cut, if you'd like to make $30 on a photo, then you have to charge:

[30+(20+20)]/(.6)=$117 (make it $120)


----------



## He Named Thor

Thanks for that. 

I guess my question then becomes how much profit is reasonable?


----------



## kimare

I need your help!

I've had a mechanical failure on my HDD, and the only way to restore it is in a clean lab which would cost me $1000+ (atm I don't have the cash).

I've tried every trick in the book without opening the unit myself, so the lab is now the only option. I need help from you by voting for a picture in a competition. This way I might be able to win a camera which could be sold on, to finance the lab rescue.

The last 10 months of photos are lost, due to my lack of backup routines . I would be extremly grateful if you're able to help me. 

regards Kim.

The site is in Norwegian. For those who don't speak english it's quite straight forward to find the pictures and vote.

follow the link
http://frimerker.absoluteinteractive.no/index2.html 
put the pictureid (bildeid) in typobox in the top right corner. click "Finn bilde" then the entry pops up, click "stem på bilde". Done! 

My pictureid (bildeid) 48209 and 43525.


----------



## samuelsamario

.................


----------



## TowerDefense

I like doing small Pics for signatures to do advertising for webpages


----------



## He Named Thor

*Yashica tech help needed!*

The model is a Yashica TL Electro. 








The problem I'm having is that when I advance the film, the mirror flips up so I can't see out of the viewfinder. This happens with all four of my lenses, most of the time. Though it will sometimes not. 

WTF is going on? Help! I can't go on with just my p&s alone.


----------



## martinatycova

Hi Everyone..

I Have one problem in my camera. I have just bought a battery grip for my eos 400d, however when I attached it, the viewfinder exposure and meter readings are all showing lit up, and are not adjustable. The lcd screen is showing all ok but, when taking shots, it is way underexposed, unless I use Manual mode and its a bit better, with the flash its ok. can anyone help, I have got 2 batteries fully charged in it, and am using Tamron 70-300mm lens.
Thanks in advance.


----------



## jereser

i need information about the camera sony cyber shot??


----------



## ØlandDK

^^
Alot of usefull info can be found here: 
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=sony+cyber+shot&aq=f&oq=&aqi=g-s5g1g-s2g2


----------



## Kelleine

HELP!!!
I am new to the photography world and I am desperate to learn a few basic tips; I also need advise on a first time semi professional camera- as in I do not want a aim and shoot camera but I am no photographer as yet so would like something in between. Can anyone give me some advise on this?
Thanks


----------



## aleph_null

Kelleine said:


> HELP!!!
> I am new to the photography world and I am desperate to learn a few basic tips; I also need advise on a first time semi professional camera- as in I do not want a aim and shoot camera but I am no photographer as yet so would like something in between. Can anyone give me some advise on this?
> Thanks


www.dpreview.com


----------



## xzmattzx

Does anyone come across the problem of taking colors of the Fall foliage from close up (maybe of the edge of the woods, or from within the woods), and the green is emphasized to the point where it looks like it's not really Fall yet? This always seems to happen to me. How can I emphasize reds and oranges and yellows with my point-and-click?


----------



## MilwaukeeMark

xzmattzx said:


> Does anyone come across the problem of taking colors of the Fall foliage from close up (maybe of the edge of the woods, or from within the woods), and the green is emphasized to the point where it looks like it's not really Fall yet? This always seems to happen to me. How can I emphasize reds and oranges and yellows with my point-and-click?


Do you have any manual settings? If so, try bumping your aperture number up and messing around with various shutter speeds. An underexposure is your friend here.


----------



## Kelleine

I didn't know where else to post this but I really want and need a good camera. I am a beginning photographer and want something fairly simple but good quality. I like to take photos of everything! 

But especially of people and the streets of cities. Can anyone advise me ona good camera?

Thank you!


----------



## GibJoe1973

As I gather that you understand Spanish better I will answer as well in Spanish

Una tela de araña es bastante pequeña entonces la camara no va a "ver" lo que quieres enfocar, y se enfoca al fondo. Esta camara no tiene para poder enfocar manualmente como una DSLR. Una solucion que puede que funcione, ponla en macro y pon tu mano justo detras de la tela (bastante pegada) darle para tomar una foto pero solo la mitad del disparo para que enfoque tu mano, quita la mano y toma la foto. Quizas te salga bien.

Saludos espero que te halla ayudado

Now in English for the benefit of others.

As a spider web is quite small, the camera although in macro will not focus. As this camera does not have manual focus like say a DSLR. Try the following place your hand at the same distance of the spider web or behind the spider web, half click the shutter button to focus, remove your hand and then press the button fully to take the shot. This might work.


----------



## piratak

ok, thanks for all answers, i will try it. but i will try in other situations, because the spider may be poisonous.im in australia


----------



## diskojoe

need some help picking a lens!!!!!!

i wanted to get a F1.4 lens to take portraits with but there are lots of options, some more costly then others. 

my top pick so far is the sony 50 mm F1.4

this one would work with my autofocus which is why i like it but have not used one yet. 

next i saw a rokinon 85mmF1.4
this one is manual focus but much cheaper

then there is the vivitar 85mm f1.4
this one is cheaper too but needs an adapter ring to fit my sony a200. dont know much about using adapter rings and such. 

then there is the minolta 50mm f1.8
this is the cheapest of the bunch at only $120 but i have to give up some dof. 


i just dont know what to pick. i would like to save money but havent used any manual focus lenses before and was hoping maybe someone could give me some feed back about any of these products.


----------



## briker

Does anyone have the Panasonic FZ40? The picture quality is apparently inferior to the FZ35, because it has the same image sensor but with increased MP (from 12-14). I need to make up my mind which one to buy, especially one I could use for indoor photos.


----------



## diskojoe

briker said:


> Does anyone have the Panasonic FZ40? The picture quality is apparently inferior to the FZ35, because it has the same image sensor but with increased MP (from 12-14). I need to make up my mind which one to buy, especially one I could use for indoor photos.


i have never been a fan of these half and half kinda cameras where its not quite a point and click but not quite a dslr either. 

but the price does look attractive for the amount of pixels you get and the lens is made by leica which is a definite plus in my book. i would say just go with the 40.


----------



## sidney_jec

briker said:


> Does anyone have the Panasonic FZ40? The picture quality is apparently inferior to the FZ35, because it has the same image sensor but with increased MP (from 12-14). I need to make up my mind which one to buy, especially one I could use for indoor photos.


FZ35 is the one for you
its true they have tried to cram more dots in the same sensor 
FZ35 is a gem of a camera.
if you not very much into photography these P&S cameras are a boon for you
the SLRs become a burden to carry after a point in time


----------



## briker

thanks guys for your help. greatly appreciated


----------



## sidney_jec

Adobe lightroom vs (and) Adobe Photoshop CS5 vs Adobe Photoshop 9?


----------



## lemerou

sidney_jec said:


> Adobe lightroom vs (and) Adobe Photoshop CS5 vs Adobe Photoshop 9?


Depends on your budget and what you want to do with it.
So you have to tell us a bit more...

I am a huge fan of Lightroom when it comes to photo editing but, depending on your budget and what you expect of it, you can find free options to replace it (Picasa, maybe ?).


----------



## sidney_jec

i am not into extensive editing of photographs.
Just a tad color enhancements, minor corrections and thats it.
CS5 is mighty expensive.
may be 200$ is something that I am looking at.
I too was looking for Lightroom as the most probable option
and yes
Thanks!! :cheers:


----------



## lemerou

sidney_jec said:


> i am not into extensive editing of photographs.
> Just a tad color enhancements, minor corrections and thats it.


Actually, you definitely should give Picasa a try.
It's free, the ergonomy is great and it does very well for just small editing.
And it's a great photo browser.


----------



## sidney_jec

Well somewhat greater than what Picassa has to offer 
I have been using that for some time now and seem to have stuck with things which I might want to change but can't like lowering the brightness (I can increase it and then decrease it to the original level however)
and things like these


----------



## ThatDarnSacramentan

I'm looking at a new camera possibly. Now, what I'm looking for is a bit odd based on the description, but here goes: I'm looking for a camera that comes closest to the kind of sharpness you see in i_am_hydrogen's photos, but a Nikon equivalent with a Nikon F bayonet mount. I'm still doing my own research, but any knowledge from other pros is always helpful.


----------



## sidney_jec

whats your budget?


----------



## ThatDarnSacramentan

sidney_jec said:


> whats your budget?


Since I'm supposed to be saving money for college and my parents don't know, preferably as cheap as I can get. My current camera is around $550, so I know whatever I try to get next will at least be $600. I've already got $100 tucked away. I ran across the D5000, but it's impossible to tell based on the sample photography.


----------



## sidney_jec

hmmmm
the sharpness of the image has most to do with the lens ans very less with the camera itself.
If you are not getting sharper images the reasons can be many

1) The lens you are using is not sharp enough
2) Your hand is not stable when you are taking the snap. Even a slightest movement (even if its on a stable surface or a tripod) would cause a blur.

Search for some photographs taken by a Nikon 50 mm 1.8D lens mounted on any Nikon camera. the images would be brilliantly sharp. 

I would rather advise spending the money on lenses rather than going for a new cam


----------



## Torg22

Hi guys. 

Quick question, i will respect your opinions on here seeings that the photography on this site is brilliant and the contents is exactly the sort of subject matter that im interested in. 

Im a complete newbie to cameras, only ever played with compacts. I am thinking about buying a SLR camera as i want to start taking it a bit more seriously. I will also like to try and get some good nightime photos of buildings in London with long exposures etc...

Would anyone recommend the Nikon D3100 for a starter camera? If so do you know of any pics or threads on this site where the pictures are taken with this camera? Any other cameras i should be thinking about?? My max budget will be £450ish. 

Thanks
Chris


----------



## Shapoor

^^ I wouldn't recommend Nikon's entry level cameras, try Canon.

________

For you non digital folks out there, I'm looking for a fixed lens 35mm camera with good sharpness. I can't pay above $50 (for a second hand obviously), so far I know of Olympus XA but I've heard they're not so reliable.


----------



## jacks

If you're after night-time photos of buildings (and not people) then a compact will be fine. You need a tripod. If you get an slr you will still need a tripod for this type of shot, and it will need to be a bigger and heavier tripod.


----------



## sidney_jec

Shapoor said:


> ^^ I wouldn't recommend Nikon's entry level cameras, try Canon.
> 
> ________
> 
> For you non digital folks out there, I'm looking for a fixed lens 35mm camera with good sharpness. I can't pay above $50 (for a second hand obviously), so far I know of Olympus XA but I've heard they're not so reliable.


whats wrong with Nikon? D40 was probably the best entry leve DSLR ever.


----------



## ukiyo

I use a P&S right now and I am really debating if I should "move up" to the level of the NEX or other "small SLR" cameras (even if they are not real SLR). I know they have much better sensors but how much better is the quality of photos exactly? Right now I have a Sony HX5V which is a P&S...it records in 1080i, 25mm, 10x zoom 10 megapixels etc.

The only things that are holding me back is:

1. Price
2. Lenses. I assume I will need to use at least 2 lenses (one for zoom and then the standard one it comes with) ...but I don't like carrying things around when I travel.


----------



## MoreOrLess

NihonKitty said:


> I use a P&S right now and I am really debating if I should "move up" to the level of the NEX or other "small SLR" cameras (even if they are not real SLR). I know they have much better sensors but how much better is the quality of photos exactly? Right now I have a Sony HX5V which is a P&S...it records in 1080i, 25mm, 10x zoom 10 megapixels etc.
> 
> The only things that are holding me back is:
> 
> 1. Price
> 2. Lenses. I assume I will need to use at least 2 lenses (one for zoom and then the standard one it comes with) ...but I don't like carrying things around when I travel.


The main difference I noticed moving to an SLR from a compact with image quality(besides megapixels which depends on what you want to use the pics for, 10 is enough for PC viewing unless you crop alot) was a much better dramatic range and better low light(high ISO) performance.

Alot of the reason to move up though is to take more control of the camera rather than using automated modes, if you don't want to do that I'd question whether its worth it.


----------



## ukiyo

Well that's why I was wondering if a camera like the "NEX" series from sony would be good. It's like inbetween a compact and a DSLR...I really want good low light performance. I don't know how to "take control" of a camera but I can learn it.


----------



## MoreOrLess

I'm no expert but the main difference between the various micro systems cameras seems to be that some like the NEX are smaller and more geared towards being a point and shoot camera while others are more like a mini SLR like the GF1 Lumix. Whether you want to have easy access to more manual settings or depend more on automated ones seems like the main choice to make for me.

The lens/lenses your going to put on the camera is really just as if not more important as the camera itself aswell, the better/bigger the sensor the better the lens needs to be to get the best of it plus of course they control the pics you can take. You want to be reading reviews of the different lenses you might buy just as much as the camera, espeically for a compact systems cameras since the lens selection is much smaller than SLR's(NEX only seems to have 4 lenses for example).

If low light performance is the main thing your after I'd say look for good high ISO performance in the camera, image stabalisation in either the camera or the lens and a large appature(smaller number) in the lens itself, fixed focal lenght(non zoom) lenses normally have the largest.


----------



## lkiller123

NihonKitty said:


> Well that's why I was wondering if a camera like the "NEX" series from sony would be good. It's like inbetween a compact and a DSLR...I really want good low light performance. I don't know how to "take control" of a camera but I can learn it.


I've known several photographers who are using NEX right now and the results are great. 

The NEXs has a bigger sensor than the competitors. The only downside is no flash hotshoe as well as (mentioned earlier) a narrower lens choice. However there are a bunch of adapters available for Canon and Nikon lens into E-mount.


----------



## MoreOrLess

lkiller123 said:


> I've known several photographers who are using NEX right now and the results are great.
> 
> The NEXs has a bigger sensor than the competitors. The only downside is no flash hotshoe as well as (mentioned earlier) a narrower lens choice. However *there are a bunch of adapters available for Canon and Nikon lens into E-mount*.


Having a quick look on the net it seems like none of these adapatures allow for autofocus which I'd guess Nihon would want.

Have a look at this page Nihon, I found it very helpful in showing the field of view you'd get, for Panasonic Lumix lenses multiple the focual lenght by 2, for Sony NEX by 1.5. Yours current P&S camera is 25-250mm on this scale...

http://lens-reviews.com/Technical-Talk/Technical-Talk/lens-field-of-view-visualisation-tool.html


----------



## xzmattzx

A nearby municipality's planning agency wants to use some of my pictures from a photo thread in a comprehensive plan. It sounds like they want to use them for free. Is this normal? Should I ask for compensation? Is there a difference between just asking for permission to use pictures and asking to buy licensing rights, which I had a private company do earlier for another picture in a separate incident?


----------



## lkiller123

^^Refer to this thread I've made on another forum:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?265327-HELP!!-Someone-is-licensing-my-photos.

Before you decide to give your photo away, make sure to read through it. 
I'd hate to see your photo being used everywhere without credit. It does happen.


----------



## i_am_hydrogen

Matt - Never give your photos away for free, unless it's a charity or something to that effect. Respond that you're willing to license the photos for $200.00


----------



## lkiller123

^^I think it would be safer if you just give them permission for one-time use.


----------



## lkiller123

By the way, some hardware questions.

I am eyeing the Sony NEX-3/5 to do some night cityscapes. Anyone here have experiences with it? How do you like it?


----------



## kenshinxxxhimura

NihonKitty said:


> I use a P&S right now and I am really debating if I should "move up" to the level of the NEX or other "small SLR" cameras (even if they are not real SLR). I know they have much better sensors but how much better is the quality of photos exactly? Right now I have a Sony HX5V which is a P&S...it records in 1080i, 25mm, 10x zoom 10 megapixels etc.
> 
> The only things that are holding me back is:
> 
> 1. Price
> 2. Lenses. I assume I will need to use at least 2 lenses (one for zoom and then the standard one it comes with) ...but I don't like carrying things around when I travel.


hi. to answer your questions:

1. The price of an entry level DSLR is almost the same if not a bit expensive than those they call semi-DSLR the likes of Canon Powershot SX30IS and some from Nikon and Panasonic. But the advantages of this SX30IS are too many to mention compared to the entry levels. For this, although I am a DSLR user, I suggest that you get this. You may wanna read reviews from here http://www.dpreview.com/news/1009/10091411sx30is.asp

2. Using DSLR, there are lense that almost cover all focal lengths. like the 18-200mm of canon, the 18-105mm of nikon. With these kind of lenses, you won't need to carry so many lenses with you.

I hope that this may help you. But for my biased opinion, if you really are serious into photography, then get the DSLR.


----------



## kenshinxxxhimura

hubzilla said:


> How about a Photoshop question. How could I fix the sky in this Tokyo panorama I stitched?
> 
> http://www.newyork.dulcemichaelanya.com/main.php?g2_itemId=12122


dude, paint it out. i mean use the paint brush in photoshop and paint the color same at the left side of the photo. set the brush opacity and hardness to around 50 and paint it out.


----------



## MoreOrLess

If you really wanted great low light performance Nihon then perhaps save up for the Fuji X100?


----------



## lkiller123

I'm not spending a grand on a fixed-lens camera, especially it is within one to two hundred bucks to the 5D classic.


----------



## MoreOrLess

lkiller123 said:


> I'm not spending a grand on a fixed-lens camera, especially it is within one to two hundred bucks to the 5D classic.


I wasnt suggesting it to you but really the 5D classic is a totally different camera, most obviously its triple the size/weight of an X100 with a decent lens on it.

The NEX's lack of wideangle zooms seems to limate it as a cityscape camera to me.


----------



## lkiller123

MoreOrLess said:


> The NEX's lack of wideangle zooms seems to limate it as a cityscape camera to me.


You can use the VCL-ECU1 wide-angle adapter for the 16mm pancake. Turns into a 12mm.

That adapter is specially designed for the pancake.:banana: Have heard good things about it.


----------



## nilbug

It's cool!

Anti-DPS


----------



## MoreOrLess

lkiller123 said:


> You can use the VCL-ECU1 wide-angle adapter for the 16mm pancake. Turns into a 12mm.
> 
> That adapter is specially designed for the pancake.:banana: Have heard good things about it.


From what I'v read/seen its good for what it is but doesnt offer image quality on the same level as a deadicated ultra wideangle. 

I spose the adaptor for other lenses would be more useful with an UWA since autofocus isnt nearly as important when your dealing with depth of field that large, setting the appature would still be a problem though I;d guiess. It wouldnt help with the biggest problem I see with the NEX though, that its very poorly balanced with outsized lenses.

To me an entry level DSLR still seems like the best option if you want wideangle and quality.


----------



## lkiller123

Yes, many NEX users on DPReview forum had been whining about pancake lenses. 

Lenses will be announced later during August, but that would be the large Zeiss 24mm and the 55-210mm. There will also be a e-mount 50mm f/1.8, but I suspect that it would be in a compact package.

Seems like we'll have to wait another year for e-mount UWA.


----------



## mywholesalegolf

Taylormade Burner 2.0 Irons
Ping G15 Irons
Mizuno MP 53 Irons


----------



## SilverSamurai

Is there where I would post questions about my camera possibly dieing?


----------



## Fabri88

A question to SSC's photographer's: when I surf on "Urban Showcase" section, in which you MUST showonly your selfmade photos, I see many pictures taken from skyscrpaers, highrises or, simply, from elevated point of view.

I want to know how this people have all these occasions to take pictures from several elevated points.

That would be interesting for me and for everyone who wants to take pictures from above!


----------



## xzmattzx

I'm going to go snorkelling in a few weeks down in Florida. I want to take pictures underwater at the coral reefs. What is my best option? I have a Canon PowerShot A590 IS. Canon has an underwater photography page where you can buy underwater cases but there does not appear to be a specific case for the A590 IS. Could a ziploc bag that is truly sealed work? Would an underwater disposable digital camera be better?


----------



## billy.bob.jimmy.jack

The bag might keep your camera dry (I wouldn't try it with any of my gear) but the optical qualities of a plastic bag, underwater, will be decidedly sub-optimal.

Vivitar make a cheap underwater (<10m) camera http://j.mp/tq49zW


----------



## haux

This isn't so much a question about photography as it is an observation with a question. Am I the only person who _doesn't_ care for edited photos? Some editing is perfectly fine, but when you start going to 11 on the sliders and making intense HDR, it does nothing for me. I want to see the scene as it was, not as you want it to be.


----------



## xzmattzx

billy.bob.jimmy.jack said:


> The bag might keep your camera dry (I wouldn't try it with any of my gear) but the optical qualities of a plastic bag, underwater, will be decidedly sub-optimal.
> 
> Vivitar make a cheap underwater (<10m) camera http://j.mp/tq49zW


I'll have to look that up on the US version of Amazon's website.


----------



## xzmattzx

I'm looking at two underwater digital cameras. Both take AA batteries, which my current camera does, and both take SD memory cards. Any suggestions on which one would be better?

Vivtar ViviCam 8400
http://www.amazon.com/Vivitar-ViviC...CK2A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1322071757&sr=8-1

Kodak EasyShare Sport C123
http://www.amazon.com/Kodak-EasySha...UQHC/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1322071241&sr=8-2


----------



## urbanyte

What exactly is your budget and how often will you need the capabilities?


----------



## xzmattzx

I'm leaning towards the Kodak right now. It got better reviews on Amazon, and I'm thinking that the massive discount for the Vivitar might be because they are having trouble selling them. I will rarely use the underwater camera: snorkelling in the Florida Keys in a couple weeks, maybe once in a while up at Lake Erie, and that's it. I figured that these $70 cameras would be enough to cover that usage.


----------



## urbanyte

Is image quality going to be important or just the waterproof aspect?

It's really difficult to recommend either the Kodak or Vivitar to be honest, the good cameras don't come cheap. The good rugged models are 2-3 times the price of the Kodak and Vivitar but it all comes down to what you can afford.

"Higher end" rugged models : http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q311waterproofcompactgrouptest/

(for when IQ and video quality are very important)


----------



## xzmattzx

I'm rarely going to use the camera, so I have no need for something expensive. $75 is a reasonable price for something that will sit in a drawer most times.


----------



## urbanyte

xzmattzx said:


> I'm rarely going to use the camera, so I have no need for something expensive. $75 is a reasonable price for something that will sit in a drawer most times.


Ah ok, makes sense then.


----------



## MoreOrLess

haux said:


> This isn't so much a question about photography as it is an observation with a question. Am I the only person who _doesn't_ care for edited photos? Some editing is perfectly fine, but when you start going to 11 on the sliders and making intense HDR, it does nothing for me. I want to see the scene as it was, not as you want it to be.


The reality is that even if your only taking jpegs your still editting, just doing so using factory presets. 

Taking pics in more challanging condictions(espeically landscapes) also often means that editting is essential to capture reality as we see it, camera sensors simpley don't work in the same way our eyes do, espeically in terms of dramatic range where even the best ones lag well behind.

I'd agree though that the more extreme the editting gets the greater the burden on the taste of the editor is. HDR espeically is probabley the most misused tool photo editting I agree, if you can tell a pic had been HDRed its normally a sign its been HDRed badly.


----------



## haux

The editing I'm talking about mostly is enhancing colors that aren't there in the first place. Well, not really. But we all know that grass isn't that green, the sky isn't that blue (unless you're on a mountaintop), and children's eyes don't sparkle like that, no matter how perfect you think they are.

Part of it also is that the version of Photoshop I got is from when I was in high school more than a decade ago. I can't shoot in raw, and I can barely do much editing at all with it. Last night one of my friends let me play with CS2 for a little bit with some of my photos. I got to see what a great tool it is. I'll save up for that and a new lens and go out and continue shooting.


----------



## aleph_null

haux said:


> The editing I'm talking about mostly is enhancing colors that aren't there in the first place. Well, not really. But we all know that grass isn't that green, the sky isn't that blue (unless you're on a mountaintop), and children's eyes don't sparkle like that, no matter how perfect you think they are.
> 
> Part of it also is that the version of Photoshop I got is from when I was in high school more than a decade ago. I can't shoot in raw, and I can barely do much editing at all with it. Last night one of my friends let me play with CS2 for a little bit with some of my photos. I got to see what a great tool it is. I'll save up for that and a new lens and go out and continue shooting.


It might just be me, but is sounds like you're just jealous of people having the ability to edit the photos while you don't. And instead of complaining, you should've picked up Lightroom when it was on sale for $100 at newegg (black friday deal). 

Besides, the things you describe can easily be achieved without the use of photoshop. Green grass, and blue skies? That's what filters are for. Sparkling eyes? With a proper use of strobes, I can get you sparkling eyes you have never seen before!


----------



## jfl875

I'm doing my bit to save bandwidth by deleting my signature


----------



## SydneyCity

On ImageShack, if you want to copy a whole album, how do you do it without the pictures appearing on SSC as thumbnails?


----------



## MoreOrLess

haux said:


> The editing I'm talking about mostly is enhancing colors that aren't there in the first place. Well, not really. But we all know that grass isn't that green, the sky isn't that blue (unless you're on a mountaintop), and children's eyes don't sparkle like that, no matter how perfect you think they are.
> 
> Part of it also is that the version of Photoshop I got is from when I was in high school more than a decade ago. I can't shoot in raw, and I can barely do much editing at all with it. Last night one of my friends let me play with CS2 for a little bit with some of my photos. I got to see what a great tool it is. I'll save up for that and a new lens and go out and continue shooting.


Again my point of view is that such editting requires alot of skill to do sucessfully, somebody just using a basic HDR wizard or whacking up the colour saturation to 11 in every picture is going to produce cheesey fake looking rubbish.

The reality is that "photo editting" has been around almost aslong as cameras have with different filters and film devolping techniques.


----------



## Imperfect Ending

okay okay okay okay I have a question. 

What is a 50mm telephoto lens good for?
http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/st...10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921666375271


----------



## MoreOrLess

Imperfect Ending said:


> okay okay okay okay I have a question.
> 
> What is a 50mm telephoto lens good for?
> http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/st...10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921666375271


Tradisionally a 50mm lens wouldnt be considered telephoto but rather the boundry between it and wide angle but on a NEX it will actually have the angle of view of a 75mm lens.

The most obvious use for that kind of focal lenght is head and sholders or more distant body shots of people which is helped by the large max appature of 1.8 which makes for a smaller depth of field(background out of focus to draw attension to the subject), a faster shutter speed and less need of a flash.


----------



## lensaperture

MoreOrLess said:


> Tradisionally a 50mm lens wouldnt be considered telephoto but rather the boundry between it and wide angle but on a NEX it will actually have the angle of view of a 75mm lens.
> 
> The most obvious use for that kind of focal lenght is head and sholders or more distant body shots of people which is helped by the large max appature of 1.8 which makes for a smaller depth of field(background out of focus to draw attension to the subject), a faster shutter speed and less need of a flash.


50mm also better for portrait..
fixed lens for portrait


----------



## milrowndreamer

Hey guys,

I'm looking to upgrade to my first DSLR camera. I am curious if any of you have suggestions on what's the best route to go? My budget is 1,000 and under.

As of right now I've been looking a lot into the Nikon d5100 and d3100 (would it be better to get the 3100 cheaper and a lens or just 5100). Also, the Canon Rebel t3i and t2i. 

I like all sorts of photography but mostly I'll be focusing on urban areas and skyline photos. Also, I've been reading into the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens and it sounds like an unbelievable bang for my buck. So, I will likely look into that.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## urbanyte

milrowndreamer said:


> I like all sorts of photography but mostly I'll be focusing on urban areas and skyline photos. Also, I've been reading into the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens and it sounds like an unbelievable bang for my buck. So, I will likely look into that.


D3100 and stick to lenses that have the "-S" after the "AF" in the name. Pick up a Nikkor 35 1.8G (the G is important) if your budget will allow. If you're looking to go Canon, the T2i is every bit as good as the T3i. The thing about Canon is you're going to find buying with a small budget difficult and they'll charge you extra for things that Nikon gives for free. 

Go into a store and see which one feels better in your hands, that's the most important part of buying a camera these days. If you can't, the Nikon is the better entry level choice.


----------



## MoreOrLess

urbanyte said:


> D3100 and stick to lenses that have the "-S" after the "AF" in the name. Pick up a Nikkor 35 1.8G (the G is important) if your budget will allow. If you're looking to go Canon, the T2i is every bit as good as the T3i. The thing about Canon is you're going to find buying with a small budget difficult and they'll charge you extra for things that Nikon gives for free.
> 
> Go into a store and see which one feels better in your hands, that's the most important part of buying a camera these days. If you can't, the Nikon is the better entry level choice.


I'd say that the D3100 is the best option if you want a really cheap/small but theres little to choose between a D5100 and a 550D/600D, Nikon offers slightly better ISO performance, Canon offers slightly more megapixels.

I'd say the best way to deside isnt actually looking at the camera bodies but rather the lenses on offer for them. Both have the same third party lenses but there are differences in price, quality and features for own brand lenses.


----------



## lyy741

I'm doing my bit to save bandwidth by deleting my signature


----------



## Majevčan

I need some advice...

I'm going to buy a new lense, which will/should be either the *Nikkor AF-S DX 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED* or *Nikkor AF-S 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED DX*... I recently started to read about these two, but still didn't deduce the info to a level that would allow me to decide...

So any constructive/professional/helpful comment from people who actually got experience with these lenses is appreciated.


----------



## bostonparkplaza

For some reason, my computer won't accept the .RAW format. For the longest time, I've had to shoot in JPEG, but I'd rather shoot in RAW. Anyone know how I could get my computer to accept RAW images? I'm running Vista Home Basic.


----------



## Gadiri

How do you fix your camera for making such video ?


----------



## haux

bostonparkplaza said:


> For some reason, my computer won't accept the .RAW format. For the longest time, I've had to shoot in JPEG, but I'd rather shoot in RAW. Anyone know how I could get my computer to accept RAW images? I'm running Vista Home Basic.


You have to get a program to read raw. There's a free plugin with Photoshop if you have that. There are plenty of programs, and I think some are free. Just Google it.


----------



## diskojoe

^^

For nikon you need a nef converter which you can get for free. Other then that photoshop should be able to do it or use the software that came with your camera.


----------



## diskojoe

milrowndreamer said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I'm looking to upgrade to my first DSLR camera. I am curious if any of you have suggestions on what's the best route to go? My budget is 1,000 and under.
> 
> As of right now I've been looking a lot into the Nikon d5100 and d3100 (would it be better to get the 3100 cheaper and a lens or just 5100). Also, the Canon Rebel t3i and t2i.
> 
> I like all sorts of photography but mostly I'll be focusing on urban areas and skyline photos. Also, I've been reading into the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens and it sounds like an unbelievable bang for my buck. So, I will likely look into that.
> 
> Thanks in advance!


The 5100 is a better motor but you have to buy more expensive lenses since there is no autofocusing motor in the body. The d7000 does have a focusing motor in the body but cost more. I would go with this is going nikon. The t3i is good for the price but the 50mm f1.8 is kind of junky. 5 blade aperture will give you harsh bokeh. I would say spring for the 50mm f1.4. 

personally I use the DSLR bastard child Sony. Stabilization is in the motor so lenses are cheaper. You can get a wide variety of lenses for it too from sigma and tamron.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Majevčan;89995430 said:


> I need some advice...
> 
> I'm going to buy a new lense, which will/should be either the *Nikkor AF-S DX 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED* or *Nikkor AF-S 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED DX*... I recently started to read about these two, but still didn't deduce the info to a level that would allow me to decide...
> 
> So any constructive/professional/helpful comment from people who actually got experience with these lenses is appreciated.


Without having owned either the impression I get is that the 12-24mm was more of a semi pro model from Nikons pre full frame digital days. Looks to have better build quality(tougher plastics, front element doesnt extend when zooming) and a more consistant performance(sharper boarders wide open, less distortion) thoughout the range. It is also generally more expensive than the 10-24mm and of course isnt as wide(2mm at that range is a very noticble difference) which means that even with the distortion corrected the 10-24mm will be wider.

The main reasons to get the 12-24mm are I'd say the build(although its still not weather sealed I believe) and if you want to shoot in the f/4-f/5.6 range at the wide end and want stronger boarder performance, say shooting architecture interiors or sunrise/sunset hand held, otherwise the 10-24mm looks better value to me.


----------



## diskojoe

milrowndreamer said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I'm looking to upgrade to my first DSLR camera. I am curious if any of you have suggestions on what's the best route to go? My budget is 1,000 and under.
> 
> As of right now I've been looking a lot into the Nikon d5100 and d3100 (would it be better to get the 3100 cheaper and a lens or just 5100). Also, the Canon Rebel t3i and t2i.
> 
> I like all sorts of photography but mostly I'll be focusing on urban areas and skyline photos. Also, I've been reading into the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II Camera Lens and it sounds like an unbelievable bang for my buck. So, I will likely look into that.
> 
> Thanks in advance!


The d5100 is a superior motor to the d3100 which is entry level. i would go with the d5100 if you are stuck on nikon. You could also get a Sony a580 which has the same sensor chip as the d5100 and the a580 also has an internal focusing motor. Lenses tend to be less expensive for sony as well.


----------



## diskojoe

Majevčan;89995430 said:


> I need some advice...
> 
> I'm going to buy a new lense, which will/should be either the *Nikkor AF-S DX 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5G ED* or *Nikkor AF-S 12-24mm f/4G IF-ED DX*... I recently started to read about these two, but still didn't deduce the info to a level that would allow me to decide...
> 
> So any constructive/professional/helpful comment from people who actually got experience with these lenses is appreciated.


A fixed f4 aperture would give you more control over the image then a variable aperture such as 3.5 - 4.5 but really it all depends on what you plan to do with it. If this is for cityscpae photography were you will be using a tripod and doing long exposure then either would work but it is nice to have the extra 2mm of focal length.


----------



## diskojoe

bostonparkplaza said:


> For some reason, my computer won't accept the .RAW format. For the longest time, I've had to shoot in JPEG, but I'd rather shoot in RAW. Anyone know how I could get my computer to accept RAW images? I'm running Vista Home Basic.


One other suggestion is that you may need to download the proper codecs to read the raw files on your computer. This should have came with your camera software but you can download them easily online.


----------



## Jayesh kaul

Great,
Thanks for sharing these thing with us...


----------



## [email protected]

I just received an E-Mail from a publisher who would like to use one of my photos in a book.

Can you give me an advice how much I can charge them for the photo. What's the usual asking price? $30? $50?


----------



## tentqx340

Yeah...


----------



## Swillylad1

bostonparkplaza said:


> For some reason, my computer won't accept the .RAW format. For the longest time, I've had to shoot in JPEG, but I'd rather shoot in RAW. Anyone know how I could get my computer to accept RAW images? I'm running Vista Home Basic.


Just google the codec that you need, mine is a CR2 codec so i google CR2 codec and bob's your uncle


----------



## diskojoe

Swillylad1 said:


> Just google the codec that you need, mine is a CR2 codec so i google CR2 codec and bob's your uncle


You can get the canon codec from the canon website if you use windows. For Mac you have to buy Aperture or download a dng converter which is free.


----------



## SkyScraperRaper

Hi Guys, I am going travelling soon, around USA, Australia and Thailand. I want to buy a digital camera but don't know where to start. I simply want a compact camera, I am not planning to be a professional photographer, nor do I want anything bulky......

What I am after:

-Most Important: High quality images
-Very good in all lighting conditions
-Small, pocket sized.
-Under £300
-At least 5x optical zoom which maintains quality when zoomed in.
-Good amount of Storage, although I'll be taking a laptop.

I keep reading reviews but they all seem to have some negative to them which puts me off. Surely there is a camera out there that meets all the points above. I want pristine quality of image whatever the situation, whether zooming in, shooting in the dark etc etc. This is very important...

Anyone know the camera for me?

Cheers.


----------



## Heludin

Question: I have a Canon, Rebel XTi, I'm trying to find the grid but it seems to be hiding from me, I've tried every button and function at no avail....anyone wise enough out there?


----------



## Yellow Fever

There is no grid line in the XTi.


----------



## dastan.puri

Im thinking on the same lines. Was considering a few options, but now its time to get my baby Nikon d5100 home 





diskojoe said:


> The 5100 is a better motor but you have to buy more expensive lenses since there is no autofocusing motor in the body. The d7000 does have a focusing motor in the body but cost more. I would go with this is going nikon. The t3i is good for the price but the 50mm f1.8 is kind of junky. 5 blade aperture will give you harsh bokeh. I would say spring for the 50mm f1.4.
> 
> personally I use the DSLR bastard child Sony. Stabilization is in the motor so lenses are cheaper. You can get a wide variety of lenses for it too from sigma and tamron.


----------



## Heludin

Yellow Fever said:


> There is no grid line in the XTi.


Thank you :cheers: I almost destroy my camera out of frustration...:lol:


----------



## Afghanistan

I have Canon


----------



## MoreOrLess

SkyScraperRaper said:


> Hi Guys, I am going travelling soon, around USA, Australia and Thailand. I want to buy a digital camera but don't know where to start. I simply want a compact camera, I am not planning to be a professional photographer, nor do I want anything bulky......
> 
> What I am after:
> 
> -Most Important: High quality images
> -Very good in all lighting conditions
> -Small, pocket sized.
> -Under £300
> -At least 5x optical zoom which maintains quality when zoomed in.
> -Good amount of Storage, although I'll be taking a laptop.
> 
> I keep reading reviews but they all seem to have some negative to them which puts me off. Surely there is a camera out there that meets all the points above. *I want pristine quality of image whatever the situation, whether zooming in, shooting in the dark etc etc. This is very important*...
> 
> Anyone know the camera for me?
> 
> Cheers.


Your simpley not going to get this from a compact camera costing £300, when your dealing with sensors this small image quality just isnt going to be as good and higher ISO(to shoot in the dark) isnt going to look good at all.

The best option to me sounds like it'll be the Canon S100, larger sensor than most compacts and around a 5Xzoom starting from a 24mm equivilent, good for landscapes.


----------



## diskojoe

SkyScraperRaper said:


> Hi Guys, I am going travelling soon, around USA, Australia and Thailand. I want to buy a digital camera but don't know where to start. I simply want a compact camera, I am not planning to be a professional photographer, nor do I want anything bulky......
> 
> What I am after:
> 
> -Most Important: High quality images
> -Very good in all lighting conditions
> -Small, pocket sized.
> -Under £300
> -At least 5x optical zoom which maintains quality when zoomed in.
> -Good amount of Storage, although I'll be taking a laptop.
> 
> I keep reading reviews but they all seem to have some negative to them which puts me off. Surely there is a camera out there that meets all the points above. I want pristine quality of image whatever the situation, whether zooming in, shooting in the dark etc etc. This is very important...
> 
> Anyone know the camera for me?
> 
> Cheers.


Canon ELPH. You could probably get one for much less then you budget. I still have one and its pretty solid little camera. But its no good in dark conditions without a tripod. You cant get everything without shelling out some more cash. But I would go get an entry level DSLR with the budget you have.


----------



## Swillylad1

Heard the canon G10 & G12 are supposed to be good.


----------



## MoreOrLess

reenilswin said:


> Well, this is the finest platform to keep our queries about photography and get best of solution for that. Let me explain you what is my query, I have just come from my brother's marriage and seen the activities of the photographer so a dream has come in my mind to become a photographer, so I want to get best suggestion from here, which can help me.


That would depend very much on your current level of expereince and ability, if you've only ever used a compact on automatic my best advice would be to buy an entry level DSLR and use it for at least a year(gradually moving away from automated modes) before you even think about buying any professional level gear or doing any paid work.


----------



## Hotu Matua

Hi, there

I would appreciate your help.
I have a Nikkon D5100 and love taking pics and posting them on SSC.
A couple of days ago, however, something really bad happened with my zoom lens and I don't have a clue of what is wrong.

It happens that *the only objects that stay on focus are those in the center of the image. The rest is blurred.*
For example, if I am trying to focus on some letters of a text in a sign, the letters will get sharp on both automatic or manual focus inasmuch as they stay at the center of the field. If I make them go to one side or corner, they blurr. 
This happens only when I am using the zoom. I have a Tamron zoom telephoto angular lens 200 mm. 

I have cleaned the forefront and rear lenses of the telephoto, but this hasn't helped.

Do you have any idea of what may be wrong?

Thanks in advance


----------



## yanvanew

*Online Virtual Assistant*

In two weeks time I am to take the official photographs at my schools 'winter ball' ... I have a Sony alpha390 14.2 Megapixels camera with a DT18-55mm lens! ... It's a common question and usually the first to indicate someone might not be.


virtual-assistants-services.com


----------



## diskojoe

Hotu Matua said:


> Hi, there
> 
> I would appreciate your help.
> I have a Nikkon D5100 and love taking pics and posting them on SSC.
> A couple of days ago, however, something really bad happened with my zoom lens and I don't have a clue of what is wrong.
> 
> It happens that *the only objects that stay on focus are those in the center of the image. The rest is blurred.*
> For example, if I am trying to focus on some letters of a text in a sign, the letters will get sharp on both automatic or manual focus inasmuch as they stay at the center of the field. If I make them go to one side or corner, they blurr.
> This happens only when I am using the zoom. I have a Tamron zoom telephoto angular lens 200 mm.
> 
> I have cleaned the forefront and rear lenses of the telephoto, but this hasn't helped.
> 
> Do you have any idea of what may be wrong?
> 
> Thanks in advance


I would take it to a camera repair shop and have them look at it. 

But its fairly common that lower grade lenses will have soft corner focusing, especially at the long end of the zoom range. Might be time to upgrade. 

You may also check you minimum focusing distance specified for your type of lens.


----------



## WesselKornel

Dear Skyscrapercitizens, I voluntary shoot at student parties every now and then, sometimes with my F/1.8, sometimes with flash, however, in complete dark circumstances with lots of flashing lights etc. (like the party) I have a really hard time using autofocus. How can I get my camera (a sony A55) to flash once to adjust focus and then a second time for the actual picture? (now it just refuses to do anything as long as it doesn't find focus, which is really annoying for the posing party people) Thanks in advance!


----------



## eusimcity4

*Aperture, Exposure, where??*

I have a question about my camera. I have a Nikon D80 and i am not sure where you adjust the Aperture and Exposure when on manual mode. I lost my camera guide. Can someone tell me where and how to change it? It's a different camera for me than my usual Canon camera. Thanks in advance!


----------



## Dequal

eusimcity4 said:


> I have a question about my camera. I have a Nikon D80 and i am not sure where you adjust the Aperture and Exposure when on manual mode. I lost my camera guide. Can someone tell me where and how to change it? It's a different camera for me than my usual Canon camera. Thanks in advance!


You should be able to download a PDF manual from the official Nikon website. Or just Google after it.


----------



## diskojoe

eusimcity4 said:


> I have a question about my camera. I have a Nikon D80 and i am not sure where you adjust the Aperture and Exposure when on manual mode. I lost my camera guide. Can someone tell me where and how to change it? It's a different camera for me than my usual Canon camera. Thanks in advance!


Turn the control knob underneath the shutter button. Then Press the control button and turn the knob to adjust the other setting.


----------



## diskojoe

WesselKornel said:


> Dear Skyscrapercitizens, I voluntary shoot at student parties every now and then, sometimes with my F/1.8, sometimes with flash, however, in complete dark circumstances with lots of flashing lights etc. (like the party) I have a really hard time using autofocus. How can I get my camera (a sony A55) to flash once to adjust focus and then a second time for the actual picture? (now it just refuses to do anything as long as it doesn't find focus, which is really annoying for the posing party people) Thanks in advance!


Switch to manual focus and turn the focusing ring. This is how most people have to shoot low light events. Google: "Dragging the shutter" also.


----------



## mrjoekalel

I think this question might be answered here...

Like many, I'm thinking about buying my first DSLR (and then contribute to the forum, of course). My three choices are:

*-Sony Alpha A65 *(24 mp, GPS, better at video focusing, not so good at low-light pics)
*-Canon Rebel T4i *(18 mp, no GPS, touchscreen, not so good at video, but better at low-light pics)
*-Canon Rebel T3i* (18 mp, no GPS, no touchscreen, cheaper than the two above)

Within that price range, does anybody have input about those cameras?


----------



## Disturbing Reality

mrjoekalel said:


> I think this question might be answered here...
> 
> Like many, I'm thinking about buying my first DSLR (and then contribute to the forum, of course). My three choices are:
> 
> *-Sony Alpha A65 *(24 mp, GPS, better at video focusing, not so good at low-light pics)
> *-Canon Rebel T4i *(18 mp, no GPS, touchscreen, not so good at video, but better at low-light pics)
> *-Canon Rebel T3i* (18 mp, no GPS, no touchscreen, cheaper than the two above)
> 
> Within that price range, does anybody have input about those cameras?


i am choosing between Canon Rebel T3i and Nikon D5100.. But I am more likely getting the T3i.. very good review, very good specs.. I'm going to the store today to compare the two and probably get one today!


----------



## xzmattzx

I was contacted about someone purchasing a picture from me. The picture was in my Daily Delaware thread, and it will be printed out on 2,500 Christmas cards for some company's employees.

They have asked if there is already a price for the picture, and if I can send them a watermarked comp.

As for price, I've sold two pictures before: one for $675 that was used for an AT&T TV commercial, and one for $500 that was used by Hyundai for a Boston Red Sox print ad. I was thinking of telling them the truth, and that my pictures go for that much. Comments?

Also, what is a comp, and how do I make a watermark?


----------



## MoreOrLess

miche89 said:


> Nikon D3100 or Canon 1100D?


I would say D3100, newer tech in the sensor.

The best value entry level camera right now to me though looks to be the Pentax K-30, modern 16 MP sensor that many think is still the best performer of its size, weather sealed body(the only one in this class of camera) and 6 frames per second.


----------



## MoreOrLess

miche89 said:


> Yup! Specs looks good than 1100D and D3100. But I love Canon and I don't know why


Personally I think someone would be nuts to buy the 1100D over the K-30 unless theres a lens in the Canon lineup they really have there eye on that there isnt an alterive for on Pentax.

Generally though I don't think Canon and Nikon's "ultra cheap" DSLR's are very good value, you get IMHO much better value for money up level up with the likes of the D3200, 600D/T3i etc.


----------



## rihnaa

Photography is really an interesting profession i am also interested in this art. You share nice photos of birds i am also want to become a photographer and want to shoot the picture of beautiful birds and plants.


----------



## italiano_pellicano

guys visit this threads for tips about the photography :

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1587610&page=2


----------



## UmarPK

What do you guys think about the Sigma 10-20mm wide angle lens? Is it worth it for the price of $479?

http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-10-20mm...7&sr=1-1&keywords=sigma+wide+angle+lens+nikon


----------



## MoreOrLess

UmarPK said:


> What do you guys think about the Sigma 10-20mm wide angle lens? Is it worth it for the price of $479?
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-10-20mm...7&sr=1-1&keywords=sigma+wide+angle+lens+nikon


Maybe not quite as good as the Canon and Nikon own brand ultra wide zooms but not far off, if you want a lens that wide its generally considered to be the best value on the market.


----------



## Omaro

Bit of a noob question, what website(s) do you recommend to post pictures on? I haven't done this on a long, long time. Tried to upload some pictures to Flickr but when I post them here they turned out to be too small  (See below) 

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=101247673&postcount=8282


----------



## Swillylad1

When you upload to Flickr you can view bigger sizes . If you upload a 2 megapixel image you can view up to 2 megapixels but if you've resized the image to 640x480, 750x500 etc you can only view up to that size. I usually upload mine at 1024x683 unless I want people to view a special picture bigger such as panorama in which case I'll add more than one watermark to avoid any copyright issues.


----------



## El Dee

I've always liked photography, but now I'd like to improve my photography skills because I will travel through Europe and I'd like to get nice pictures from the different cities that I will visit.
Currently I use this camera:
http://cameras.pricegrabber.com/digital/Sony-DSC-W570-Digital-Still/m848476576.html#tab=details
It's not bad, for example this is one picture that I took in Warsaw last year:


DSC00759 by El Dee The Hague, on Flickr

But I'm really a noob with photography and I'd like to improve my photography skills and maybe even a single lens reflex camera. But if I'll buy this, I want to be sure that it is necessary and where I have to focus at when buying one. Because now I just use the automatic position.

Like I said, sometimes I make nice pictures. But this photo is the kind that I want:
http://sphotos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/599413_588956611116538_1468956001_n.jpg
(source: www.onlithuania.com)

What is the best way to improve your pictures for me? Where to start? I know there are things like ISO etc. but I have no idea what they mean and how to use it. I really would like to know that before buying a single lens reflex camera.
Thanks in advance!


----------



## Swillylad1

A good start is to get a tripod.


----------



## El Dee

Ofcourse that will be a good thing. But it's not really comfortable to walk with an tripod when travelling through Europe


----------



## Puinkabouter

The best camera is the one you carry with you


----------



## Swillylad1

El Dee said:


> Ofcourse that will be a good thing. But it's not really comfortable to walk with an tripod when travelling through Europe


 You can get a little tripod or table top one . It's worth carrying one even if you only use it once or twice. I carry far more than what i need just in case i might need to use something.


----------



## thun

"Get a tripod" really isn't the best advice to give to a beginner.  He probably wouldn't know when to use it. That said, a table top tripod for a point-and-shoot is always a useful thing to have.

First of all, you should learn what your camera actually can do. Use the semimanual and ultimately the manual modes to learn. The "Auto" mode really is for careless photographers only. Learn how exposure, metering and aperture (if you can adjust the latter on your rather small point-and-shoot) affect the outcome and how you can use these parameters creatively. There are plenty of Youtubers explaining that stuff an a very good way. Try out different settings on one motive to learn how this changes the result.
For most beginners, learning how to compose a good picture is the cheapest way - and the one where most progress can be made - to improve picture quality. There are lots of books on this, and as this hasn't changed from analog times, an old book from a garage sale gives you all you need to know.

If you really want to get into photography, sooner or later you'll end up buying a DSLR or a MILC (Nikon 1 and alike) anyway as with these systems you'll actually learn how things like focus, aperture, etc. work and they open you much more creative possibilities. However, as a decent beginner DSLR with two lenses and some accessories I'd regard absolutely essential when travelling will set you back 600-700 euros and is quite bulky for travelling, I'd try to make the best out of your point-and-shoot before upgrating. That said, I'm pretty sure you won't be able to take similar pictures to that you linked with your point-and-shoot (probably no wide angle lens and almost certainly problematic against the light).

P.S.: The higher the ISO, the shorter exposure can be in low light (originally ISO coded the light sensitivity of a film). This obviously helps avoiding camera shake (if you don't use a tripod) but you'll have to put up with grainier pics (lower quality).


----------



## QuantumX

*Nikon D5200 versus Nkon D7000*

Guys, I'm looking to upgrade from my Nikon D5000. Can anyone give feedback regarding the Nikon 5200 versus the Nikon D7000?:cheers:


----------



## thun

D5200 is very similar to your D5000, compared with the D7000 it has more Megapixels and is smaller.
D7000 has got the User interface of the bigger cams (with the very useful LCD on top and a second setup dial wheel), its own autofocus monitor (autofocus of (elder) lenses which don't have a silent wave motor works!) and is said to be sturdier. Then again, it's much bigger and heavier.

It depends on how you use your camera. If you only have got silent wave lenses and want to travel (fly, backpack) with your cam, I'd go for the D5200. If you use it a lot within a studio, on a tripod, at night or travel by car, the D7000 might be more interesting.


----------



## MoreOrLess

Basically the D7000 is larger, better built and have more in the way of manual controls and displays, the D5200 is smaller with a higher resolution sensor.

What I would say though is that 24 megapixels is very high resolution for an ASPC camera, getting the best out of the center of the frame shouldn't be that hard but if you were more interested in things like landscapes you'd likely need to spend on high end lenses to do so.


----------



## QuantumX

MoreOrLess said:


> What I would say though is that 24 megapixels is very high resolution for an ASPC camera, getting the best out of the center of the frame shouldn't be that hard but if you were more interested in things like landscapes you'd likely need to spend on high end lenses to do so.


I ended up going with the Nikon D5200.


----------



## Jimmods

*Photography question?*

If I am taking a picture of someone from 5 feet away and they are running, do I set the shutter speed or the aperture first? And what would the settings be for both of them? (using a film camera) 

If I am taking a picture of a sign from 200 feet away, do I set the shutter speed or the aperture first? And what would the settings be for both of them? (also using a film camera) 


Please help me please I want to take good pictures for a project I'm working on! Thank you!


----------



## MoreOrLess

Jimmods said:


> If I am taking a picture of someone from 5 feet away and they are running, do I set the shutter speed or the aperture first? And what would the settings be for both of them? (using a film camera)
> 
> If I am taking a picture of a sign from 200 feet away, do I set the shutter speed or the aperture first? And what would the settings be for both of them? (also using a film camera)
> 
> Please help me please I want to take good pictures for a project I'm working on! Thank you!


The shutter speed might be an issue with motion blur, for someone running I'd be looking at getting it as fast as I can up to about 1/500 of a second to make sure you avoid that.

Aperture is going to control how much depth of field you have which also depends on the distance to the subject and the focal length. For a moving subject I wouldn't look to shoot with too large(i.e. small number) F-stop if your lens has one.

Unless your shooting in very good light I'd recommend at least ISO 400 film.


----------



## Wapper

Hey guys,
I might want to buy the Fujifilm finepix X10 or the newer X20 compact camera. I'm mostly interested because of the small size (I need to carry it around on long trips and it should be discreet) and because of the low price (I'm not very rich and I'm a beginner). I read some reviews and both models seem to be pretty decent cameras for being so compact, but I don't know if they're suitable for all uses. Does anyone know if these cameras would be good enough to take decent street pics and especially to photograph details on the façades of buildings? 
Thanks in advance.


----------



## Wapper

Nobody has an anwser? 
Maybe someone knows an alternative? I'm looking for a descent, but affordable camera.


----------



## Eurest

The X20 is a highly regarded compact camera, but for the same price you may want to consider Mirrorless interchangeable cameras like the Fuji X-A1 or the Olympus PEN E-PM2 or E-PL5.
These mirrorless cameras are still fairly small and pocketable in coat or jacket pockets

Nevertheless, the X20 is a fine choice and is one of the more appropriately priced premium compact cameras when compared to the Sony RX100 Mark III


----------



## oluocheli

Is photography a good profession? Can you become a millionaire with photography? Regards, Peter Oluoch, http://dvcaf.uonbi.ac.ke


----------



## KeanoManu

I'm thinking of replacing my five year old Nikon D90 with a Nikon D5200. Anyone with a good knowledge of cameras here who can give some advice on if that's a waste of money or a good idea?

From what I've read it seems like the D5200 takes considerably better quality pictures and doesn't really lack any of the features that the D90 has.


----------



## goldbough

KeanoManu said:


> I'm thinking of replacing my five year old Nikon D90 with a Nikon D5200. Anyone with a good knowledge of cameras here who can give some advice on if that's a waste of money or a good idea?
> 
> From what I've read it seems like the D5200 takes considerably better quality pictures and doesn't really lack any of the features that the D90 has.


I shoot Canon, but did find out that the D5200 doesn't have a built-in autofocus motor so you'd have to use lenses that have it. I don't fully understand this, but your D90 had this feature and the D5200 doesn't.

From wikipedia "Like Nikon's other consumer level DSLRs, the D5200 has no in-body autofocus motor"

I can't comment on anything else though.


----------



## KeanoManu

goldbough said:


> I shoot Canon, but did find out that the D5200 doesn't have a built-in autofocus motor so you'd have to use lenses that have it. I don't fully understand this, but your D90 had this feature and the D5200 doesn't.
> 
> From wikipedia "Like Nikon's other consumer level DSLRs, the D5200 has no in-body autofocus motor"
> 
> I can't comment on anything else though.


D90 seems to be the only, non-professional, Nikon camera which has that feature. Most lenses seems to have it instead. I don't know if there's a better quality of the auto-focus if it's done in the camera instead of in the lens though.


----------



## goldbough

I doubt it would make much difference. I think the lens itself would make a bigger difference in image quality.


----------



## chowindy

I have not seen any difference because I don't use it... To get the most out of it you need to have a remote control, or shutter release cable. However, all the articles I've read agree that Mirror Lock-up adds to the sharpness and overall quality of the photo. I would not doubt it. Between good glass, a steady tripod, accurate settings and mirror lock-up, you should be able to get the most out of your evening photography.
__________________
dota 2,dota


----------



## Raveolution

How do you view pictures in posts on this forum?

I don't like scrolling or sliding or page-down, it gets annoying.

Ideally would be to view pictures full screen, one by one instead of nonstop scrolling the page.

Any ideas?


----------



## Swillylad1

Jimmods said:


> If I am taking a picture of someone from 5 feet away and they are running, do I set the shutter speed or the aperture first? And what would the settings be for both of them? (using a film camera)
> 
> If I am taking a picture of a sign from 200 feet away, do I set the shutter speed or the aperture first? And what would the settings be for both of them? (also using a film camera)
> 
> 
> Please help me please I want to take good pictures for a project I'm working on! Thank you!


If you want motion blur then you should set the camera to shutter priority and have probably a shutter speed of between 1/30 & 1/80 but if you want the subject to be frozen in it's tracks then use a faster shutter speed of anything over 1/200 or use Aperture priority and use the smallest setting of your lens. As for the sign if it's in daylight and the light is good use aperture priority and adjust the aperture till your camera's meter reads a fast shutter speed


----------



## Swillylad1

oluocheli said:


> Is photography a good profession? Can you become a millionaire with photography? Regards, Peter Oluoch, http://dvcaf.uonbi.ac.ke


Only if you're good at it. Today's digital age makes it easy for anyone to get good results and with the new age of HDR almost any tom dick n harry can take a poor photograph and make it look good so there's too much competition these days. So if you work hard and can market yourself well then you can make plenty of money specially in Weddings & Portraiture , sports events can make you plenty of money too.


----------



## KeanoManu

I have a new thought. I'm looking into getting the D7100, which is the direct successor of my current D90. It's five years since I bought my D90 and it feels like it's five years where very much has happened in camera technology.

Is it a waste to buy a D7100 if I already have a D90 or is it a big difference between them? Judging by tests and comparasions between them on the internet it seems like there's a huge difference at least. Any advice? Should I make the upgrade?


----------



## goldbough

I'd say go for the D7100. Here's a site comparing the D7100 and D90.

To me, one advantage of the D7100 is double the resolution (24 MP vs 12 MP). If you want to print big, this is good.

Another is the number of focus points (51 vs 11). Although I've gotten by fine with 9 focus points on my 5D II.

The D7100 also has in-camera HDR if you're into that.

One of the best advantages is the number of cross-type focus points (15 vs 1). Cross-type focus points can better find focus in dark situations. My 5D II has only the center point as cross-type. Just the other day I was out in the early morning and couldn't use the outer points, but the center point found focus. So 15 cross-type points is really good if you use the camera inside your house (a house is much darker to a camera than you'd think).

The D7100 is also weather sealed so if you're in light rain, don't worry!

Its dynamic range is a little better than the D90 too, which means it captures colors a little better.

The viewfinder has 100% coverage, although the actual viewfinder is a touch smaller than the D90's. Sometimes I take a shot with my 5D II and find the edge has something I don't want. Sure, it's easy to crop out, but it'd be nice to see exactly what you're capturing. I did just order the 5D III which addresses the viewfinder problem and cross-type points.

The battery life is a little longer on the D7100 too.

The D7100 shutter can shoot up to 1/8000s whereas the D90 was 1/4000s.


----------



## KeanoManu

Thank you very much for that answer!

I will soon make the upgrade to D7100.


----------



## smontero

How should I take photos of stars to get good photos? I have tried some things with My D5100 but the result is not like I expected. Thanks


----------



## goldbough

smontero said:


> How should I take photos of stars to get good photos? I have tried some things with My D5100 but the result is not like I expected. Thanks


What exactly is the problem? Not bright enough? Something else?

The brightness of stars is so low to a camera that you can't have too much brightness going on elsewhere. Otherwise the other elements will be too bright in the final photo.

You may be using ISO 100 or 200 to reduce noise, but your exposures would have to be at least 30 seconds or so to get enough of the starlight. Start with ISO 800 or 1600 (I try to use ISO 800 so it's not too noisy). Keep the exposure times short if you want to avoid star trails. I use a 35mm lens on a full-frame camera and I get very slight star trails after exposing for about 12 seconds. If you use a wider lens you can use a longer exposure (~20 seconds).

Besides high ISO, you also need to have your lens wide open. If you're using a lens at f/4 it's going to take longer than 15 seconds to get a good exposure. That could be your problem. I use from f/1.8-f/2.0.

I think this image (by me) was 10 seconds. There were street lights nearby which lit the rocks. The lights in the background were ships on the ocean.










This one (also by me) had no lights around (yay!) so I was able to light the bus stop myself with my flashlight. It also had an exposure of around 10 seconds. Continuous light from the street is usually too bright so when you can light something yourself, it's much better.










Some of it also has to do with post-processing. I use Lightroom and use the clarity slider on the star area which makes it pop more.

Do you have an example of one that didn't work that you can post?


----------



## S_meera1

the problem with long exposures is your stars will become trails because the earth is constantly moving (1 degree every four minutes, if I am not mistaken).

So for sharp shars, I guess the ISO has to be high. Very high.


----------



## Yellow Fever

Did you use tripod and flash for night time photos? The good thing about the DSLR or mirrorless (doesn't need to be expensive) is you can manually adjust the exposure that would be helpful for night time photography. A new Canon T5i would be around $400 which would suit your budget but it only comes with the 18 to 55 mm kit lens, so it might not be enough for your need.


----------



## xzmattzx

Yellow Fever said:


> Did you use tripod and flash for night time photos? The good thing about the DSLR or mirrorless (doesn't need to be expensive) is you can manually adjust the exposure that would be helpful for night time photography. A new Canon T5i would be around $400 which would suit your budget but it only comes with the 18 to 55 mm kit lens, so it might not be enough for your need.


No tripod, but I do stabilize it with walls or things like that. I keep the flash off, since that seems to darken the pictures. I play around with the exposure length in some manual modes with my point-and-click, and can do decent without any real experience.

One thing that irritates me with my nighttime pictures is when I have a direct source of light in the picture. Then I get the rings emanating outward. Or, if I want to get a lighted sign, the light all blurs together. Take the picture below. The lighted right turn sign is all a green blur. The streetlights make the street scene much less crisp than I would like. I'd like something that would make this much better.


----------



## Yellow Fever

Looks like you took this photo by zooming in, unlike the DSLR's optical zoom, your camera uses the digital zoom instead and thats probably one of the reasons that the image isn't as clear as you want. I don't shoot much night photos but I guess the flare coming from the streetlights is probably caused by over exposure, whats the aperture and shutter speed setting you used and does your camera has ISO adjustment feature?

The photo also looks a little bit yellow, it might have something to do with the white balance setting.


----------



## xzmattzx

Yellow Fever said:


> Looks like you took this photo by zooming in, unlike the DSLR's optical zoom, your camera uses the digital zoom instead and thats probably one of the reasons that the image isn't as clear as you want. I don't shoot much night photos but I guess the flare coming from the streetlights is probably caused by over exposure, whats the aperture and shutter speed setting you used and does your camera has ISO adjustment feature?
> 
> The photo also looks a little bit yellow, it might have something to do with the white balance setting.


I zoomed in with just optical zoom; my point-and-click has a 30x optical zoom. I typically set the exposure length at 1/4, 1/5, or 1/6, and usually that's all I adjust. I can also change the aperture, and there is an ISO setting too, I think, but I am unsure on what direction in either means what, and how much to use them.


----------



## Yellow Fever

Another thing I should mention is longer the focal length in the zoom you use, lower the quality of the photo you will get, your camera does have good optical zoom, but the photo comes out from the zoom won't be as good as the images using no zoom. The P & S camera has a lens integrated with the body, so it is possible to have a very high zoom range over the DSLR with which you need to get a separated telephoto lens to match and that can be super expensive, long and heavy but the quality would be much better than the P&S.

I prefer using the complete manual setting when taking night photos such as moon shots and cars' light trails etc for it will give me more control over the exact exposure effect I want on the photos

I have posted some articles about the exposures here including the ISO and other topics from some photography sources, you can check it out and hopefully you may find it useful.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=144812709#post144812709


Back on your question about the street light thing, I'd try to use ISO 100 to 200, aperture from f5.6 to f8 and shutter speed probably would take a full second and may be longer because of the low iso number we are going to use. Don't be afraid to play around with the combinations of the exposure settings, even the professionals usually take many shots in order to get one satisfactory.


----------



## Yellow Fever

If the pictures come out too dark, just crank up the ISO to 400 or more.


----------



## Puinkabouter

xzmattzx said:


> I zoomed in with just optical zoom; my point-and-click has a 30x optical zoom. I typically set the exposure length at 1/4, 1/5, or 1/6, and usually that's all I adjust. I can also change the aperture, and there is an ISO setting too, I think, but I am unsure on what direction in either means what, and how much to use them.


There are 3 components to consider for a good exposure. Each has a drawback and a bonus. In short:


*ISO*: the sensitivity of the chip to light
Good: the higher the number, the more sensitive to light. On higher ISO, you can get a bright picture with a shorter exposure or smaller aperture.
Bad: the higher the ISO, the more noise will appear. This is usually where the difference between cheap and expensive cameras shows.
Way to go: keep the ISO as low as the situation allows for.

*Shutter speed*: The amount of time the chip is exposed to light. It is expressed in seconds.
Good: The longer the exposure, the brighter the picture.
Bad: the longer the exposure, the higher the likelihood of having blurry images. Shutter speeds lower than 1/125 often show motion blur. Also, when using a flash, you often can't go faster than 1/250, because otherwise the flash might not yet have fired when the exposure happens.
Way to go: try to keep the exposure time 1/x or shorter, with X being the focal distance (on 20mm, you can go for an exposure of 1/20, on 125mm, don't go for longer than 1/125). When going for longer exposures, use support, like a tripod.

*Aperture*: The amount of light that is allowed to pass through the photographic objective (aka. the lens). It is measured in a fraction of full opening. So a f/8 means you only use 1/8th of the full opening of the aperture. f/4 means you use 1/4th, etc.
Good: The lower the number, the more light you let in. The higher the number, the greater the depth of field - this means it will be easier to have a lot of things in focus, and to get a very crisp, sharp image.
Bad: The lower the number, the shorter the depth of field is (ie. it's harder or even impossible to get the whole picture in focus), and the more lens faults will show, such as chromatic aberration.
Way to go: use f/8 through f/11 for most purposes. It's where most lenses perform best for sharpness. Lower numbers can be useful for low light settings or where super fast shutter speeds are needed (like sports photography), but have limited use for architectural and landscape photography. Higher numbers have some use for situations with a lot of light (bright midday sun etc.), although filters like a Neutral Density Filter or a Polariser might be better solutions for that.




What you need for that pic with the right turn sign, is a normal aperture (f/8 through f/11), a normal ISO (100 through 400) and a very long exposure (several seconds, probably 5-10). The sign will probably still be overexposed to the point where you can't see what it says, but the light sources wont appear as blotches anymore, but more like little stars. You could still get detail back on that sign with some more advanced techniques that involve post-production, like merging multiple exposures (either automated HDR or by artisanal cut-and-paste work in PS) or with some good RAW processing.

I also suggest you try taking night pics immediately after sunset, as there will still be some light in the sky. This makes for a more balanced distribution of light and dark. A pitch black sky with no detail often weighs down on a photo.


----------



## manhuelofspain

Flickr does not work well and they do not do anything to fix it. Total incompetence.

(from Spain)


----------



## Yellow Fever

Yes, its been slow lately and couldn't upload photos especially in the night time.


----------



## Matthieu

Hello, I currently have a Panasonic Lumix GX80 (Micro 4/3) with a 30mm 2.8 lens from Sigma and a 40-150mm 2.8 lens from Olympus.

I am considering something with a wider angle for urban photography of good quality for this camera. I am hesitating between the 17mm 1.8 from Olympus, the 7-14mm 2.8 also from Olympus and the 12mm 1.4 from Leica.

Any opinion here?


----------



## io_bg

It's up to you to decide which focal length you prefer. What do you mean by urban photography anyway? If you'd like to capture street photos [of strangers], then the 17 should be a good choice. If you intend to take cityscapes then a ultra wide angle (such as the 7-14) would be more useful.


----------



## Matthieu

Finally went for a 12mm 1.4


----------



## halop6440

you will want your exposure time beyond 1 second for sure


----------



## halop6440

take night photos without a tripod. Maybe it's time for you to move up to an entry-level SLR, Matt. The Digital Rebel XT--a fantastic camera--is now available for around $450, the price of some digicams


----------



## SonaMarian

wow


----------



## Douglas L. Jaworski

Canon is the best technique for photographs. I have been using it for quite some time and advise everyone.


----------



## ghostrider21

I am looking to start photoghraphy i have a budget from 200-350$ what kind of camera should i buy?


----------



## Bibel

Hi, if we look up to a skyscraper we see the floors getting shorter.
A wide lens makes the floors longer. An ultra wide lens can make the highest floors higher than that one on the ground, which are in reality (meters/ feet) both the same.
Is there a way, what I not see (perspective and meshes do not), to make the highest floors shorter floor by floor a little less, so that all floors in the image at least are on the same high?


----------



## qbeck37

@BuffCity thanks for the useful tips. I would particularly agree that a tripod is much needed...


----------



## danteweb

ghostrider21 said:


> I am looking to start photoghraphy i have a budget from 200-350$ what kind of camera should i buy?


Buy a preowned Canon EOS 7d on ebay. You should be able to get something for your budget.


----------

