beauh44

Hi Robert, As others have pointed out, on a 1.6x camera, a 50mm lens is ideal for portraits.

If you like to shoot available light, then an f/1.8 aperture is great to have. IMHO, those are

the two, primary reasons to "need" this lens.

Very interesting! Great portrait! I may be wrong (probably am) but the corners look like it may have been a print tucked into a cardboard "mount".

 

Now let's re-touch it in Photoshop and Draganize that thing! ;-)

 

Thanks for sharing that, Gaetano!

Hi Thomas, I guess the same could be asked of most things created by man; art,

literature, music, etc. Very little of anything stands the test of time. But that doesn't mean

(imho) it's not worth the pursuit.

 

For some reason your question made me think of Shelley's poem, Ozymandias.

 

I think Wiki sums up the gist of it pretty well by saying: "Without directly stating it, Shelley

shows that all works of humankind - including power structures and governments -

eventually must pass into history, no matter how permanent they may seem at the apex of

their influence. Ozymandias' short-sighted pride seems amusing at first - until the reader

realizes that the lessons conveyed are equally applicable today. All things must pass."

 

************************************

 

I met a traveller from an antique land

 

Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone

 

Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,

 

Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown

 

And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command

 

Tell that its sculptor well those passions read

 

Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,

 

The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.

 

And on the pedestal these words appear:

 

"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:

 

Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"

 

Nothing beside remains: round the decay

 

Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,

 

The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Hi Alp, Maybe I got lucky but my 100mm f/2.8 macro autofocuses fine at a distance. It makes a great portrait lens, imho. Since you're using a 20D with its "crop factor" (1.6x multiplier) a 50mm will give you a nice portrait lens too. Any of Canon's 50mm's will do fine. Even though it's a bit long in the tooth and doesn't have USM, the Canon 50mm f/2.5 Compact Macro on a 20D is sharp as Einstein and has almost zero distortion. Good luck!

No lens can change certain realities. If you must use available light and can't stand noise then you'll need a fast lens (unless you have a LOT of available light) so you can use the lowest-possible ISO setting. A "fast" lens by definition is one that can be set to a wide aperture. A wide aperture gives you very narrow DOF, plus most lenses aren't at their sharpest when used wide-open.

 

All of these problems could be addressed by adding a bit more light on your subject and most people use flash for that. With a decent strobe, softbox and maybe a reflector, you can have your cake and eat it too; you could use your lowest ISO with a lens that allows you to get close and fill the frame, while stopping it down a bit to get the sharpest possible shots with the most DOF and least noise. It can also help you freeze a quick-moving subject... like a child.

 

If you were shooting adults who could hold absolutely still for a quarter or half-second exposure, then you could probably get away without flash and meet the criteria you've set - that, or pretty much only shoot in broad daylight.

 

If you have young children darting about in natural light that's not terribly bright, then it's going to be very difficult and I'm afraid it won't matter what lens you use. I guess you could sedate the kids. ;-)

 

Using one flash is not difficult to master. It could be used sparingly to just augment your existing natural light, or cranked up a bit to freeze action. At the least, it would open up many more possibilities for your photography. Good luck!

Hi Gino,

 

I tried to post a link to a site that claims to have a CISS for the 3800 available in 2 weeks (March 28th, according to their site) but Photonet's software came back and said the site had "been identified as a spammer on Photonet" and wouldn't let me submit the URL.

 

However if you combine the 2 words "ink" and "republic" into one word, (without quotes) followed by: .com/3800.asp ...that should get you there.

 

I'd have BIG reservations about using this system - whether they're spammers or not. For example they don't mention if the ink is dye or pigment-based but say it can be used on "any" type of paper. That would lead me to believe it'll be dye-based and possibly have longevity issues. It's an expensive printer with a fancy, newly-designed printhead and who knows what this stuff might do.

 

But there ya go! Good luck!

A 50mm on a FF camera isn't really considered "wide" but just "normal" (whatever that is). I have a 1Ds2 (FF) camera and use the 50mm f/1.4 often. While it's not a speed-demon in the focusing dept. I have no complaints at all and it's a great low-light lens for the money. Sure it'll be softer at f/1.4 than at f/5.6.

 

I must agree with Puppy Face about the 50mm Compact Macro, which I think is one of Canon's "gems". I know... it's long in the tooth and doesn't have USM but optically it's just killer. Since the lens is recessed back in the barrel you really don't need a lens hood with it and for all intents and purposes, it's pretty much distortion free.

 

For street photography though, I'd probably lean to the f/1.4 so I don't think you screwed up, but I'd also give a long look at the 24-105mm f/4L IS. Sure, the f/4 is kind of slow but optically it's excellent, has image stabilization and covers a really useful range. It does a very good job, wide-open too.

You could also mount your camera on a tripod. Use mirror-lock and either a remote-release or the built-in timer and take test shots of static subjects (A newspaper taped to a well-lit wall is used a lot) to test your camera and lens. Take quite a few shots, varying the aperture; i.e. shoot at f/4, f/5.6, f/8 etc. Most lenses aren't as sharp wide-open as they are stopped down a few stops.

 

If those tests come back sharp, the problem isn't in the camera but likely a technique issue. Good luck!

Hi Lori, As you know, traditionally, in the "old" film days, hardly *any* photographer sold the negs because much of their bread and butter is/was made from prints. But for better or worse, digital has changed expectations. My only thought was 6 months isn't very long. I'd consider maybe upping that to 1 year and perhaps give a discount at the end of the year based on how many prints they order from you within that year. If they've ordered lots of prints, give those folks a bit better price than those who didn't.

 

I'd also explain a lot of the "little" things that go in to making a *good* print - like profiling your display to get nice skin tones - and/or other things you can think of that add value. These are things that most "Costco" labs usually don't offer. Also, show off only your very best prints so they'll make the el-cheapo Wal-Mart ones look pretty bad. Good luck!

Hi Brandon, You may have already tried this or something similar but get out the Yellow Pages and look for photographers in your area - particularly ones whose work you admire or those who are (successfully) doing what you'd like to be doing.

 

I wouldn't call them but instead drop by and introduce yourself during business hours. Then offer your services for as long as you can, for free. With any luck, someone should take you up on it. You'll never know until you ask! ;-) Good luck!

Hi Laura, VR lenses are quite helpful if the *photographer* (or camera/lens) moves a little, but won't help at all if the *subject* moves - and I suspect that's more the problem. However, if you routinely shoot hand-held, without a tripod, VR lenses can help keep your end of things "steady"... but again, it won't do anything at all if your subjects are bouncing off the walls.

 

My .02 cents would be to gradually learn flash photography as opposed to or in addition to, natural light. One great advantage of flash is that it can "freeze" subject motion - which sounds as though it'd be very helpful in your case. This isn't something you'd have to encorporate into your work overnight, but as I said, gradually, as you get comfortable with it.

 

In the mean time, you could obviously try to provide more natural light (closer to the source such as a window, door, etc), use reflectors to bounce more of the available light and shoot at a higher ISO value to get faster shutter speeds.

 

There have been great strides in reducing noise in the current crop of DSLRs. Nikon's new D3 is amazing in that regard - but expensive, obviously. However, you can get excellent results with software (like Neat Image) that gets rid of noise and works with Photoshop.

 

Anti-noise software can soften things up a little but with proper sharpening techniques applied afterwards, most of that can be fixed.

 

Print-size comes into play with regards to noise too. If you seldom make bigger than 8X10s you can get away with a lot more noise than if you're making 13X19s and sometimes (some) noise can look good, especially in B&W images as it can resemble film grain.

 

But I still think that investing a few hundred bucks in a decent strobe (Alien Bees 800W would work fine), a softbox and a reflector would go a long way to sharpening up your shots. Once you're comfy you can mix natural light and flash for the best of both. Good luck!

<center> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3707138-md.jpg">

</center>

<center> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3880408-md.jpg">

</center>

<center> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/4805594-md.jpg">

</center><P>

<center>Barn with horse</center>

<center> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3429126-md.jpg">

</center><P>

<center>Mabry Mill off the Blue Ridge Parkway in Virginia</center>

Jeff's got a point, even if it's a bit cheeky. ;-) But seriously, I'm sure fetish photographers see quite a bit of genuine pain.

 

I guess the advice about hiring an actor is OK. But if I wanted to photograph pain, three quarters of the world is probably in a great deal of it at any given time, so traveling to poor, under-developed countries, war-zones and the like might be quite fruitful - if that's the proper word to use. No need for fake blood in the middle of a war.

 

If that's not practical there's always ambulance chasing, nursing homes, hospitals, funerals, etc., etc.

My .02 cents: As long as you get a fair price and everything's on the up-and-up and in working order, I wouldn't sweat it as far as the camera failing. Also if you buy it from a reputable dealer they'll let you return it if something's amiss when it arrives.

 

It's not that they don't fail... Of course that can happen. But most of the things that are the most likely to fail, i.e. a shutter, aren't terribly expensive to repair.

 

Since you mentioned this would be your first DSLR, perhaps you've been a film shooter. The money you'll save on buying and developing film will quickly offset almost any likely repair bill you may encounter.

 

I still have a 10D that I bought at least 6 years ago and it's never had a problem. I also have a 20D I bought not long after it was introduced - never a problem. Ironically the most expensive camera I every bought (1Ds2) has had the most problems but Canon fixed everything, under warranty, even after the warranty had expired in my case.

 

I'd also agree that, while the 28-135mm IS lens is OK... one can do better. It's hard to go wrong with any Canon 50mm prime and you can always "zoom with your feet". There are some excellent EF-S lenses out now that are a bit more expensive than the 28-135, but you do get what you pay for. Good luck!

In addition, according to Lee Varis, the author of "Skin" (an excellent book on getting accurate skin tones with digital cameras and Photoshop) the Kodak gray card isn't "spectrally neutral" and instead he recommends a "Robin Myer Digital Gray Card" from http://www.rmimaging.com I have no idea about its RGB values as far as 18% etc. goes though.

Bob's right. I sure can't recommend "tough actin' Tinactin".

Hi Kylie, Wow - that's not much room! Lots of folks here aren't big fans of continuous lighting and given the room you've got to work with, I'd definitely avoid "hotlights" because both you and your subjects would be baking in no time.

 

However some of the newer daylight-balanced fluorescents might work and imho, they *can* be easier for newbies to work with than flash. They also won't bake you out of the room.

 

So, my .02 cents would be to narrow it down to either daylight balanced fluorescents or a simple flash setup - like a single Alien Bees 400 or 800W light with a softbox and perhaps a reflector.

 

You can make really good portraits with one light and a reflector. You don't need to get fancy. The experience with working with flash would stay with you if and when you ever are able to get a larger room.

 

Here's an example of one Alien Bee 400W light in a softbox, shot in a spare bedroom in my home: http://www.photo.net/photo/6983340

 

And while lots of people poo-poo continuous lighting, I don't. This shot was taken with a single 500W hotlight in a small softbox in my basement with a very low ceiling and not much room at all: http://www.photo.net/photo/6983340

 

I'm sure one could get similar results using newer - and cooler - daylight balanced fluorescents that would keep everyone much cooler. Good luck!

Hi, M Barbu!

 

It's a complicated answer! ;-) The venue at which I took the Wooten pics has a vague policy on photography. Basically they say if the artist says it's ok, non-flash photography is permitted. Conversely, if the artist says no, you can't.

 

When I couldn't find Mr. Wooten's policy listed on the web site prior to the show, I called the venue and asked. The person I spoke to said "Well he doesn't say you *can't* take pictures, so I guess it's OK"

 

So I showed up with this rather ridiculously large lens and *then* I was told - by some guy at the door - that I couldn't take pictures. I was disappointed to say the least and explained that I'd called and was told it was OK. I also explained that if I took my (rather expensive) camera back to my car, I'd miss the first part of the show.

 

Long story short, the guy said to go on in, with my camera, but "you're not supposed to take pictures". (Again though, nowhere was that mentioned anywhere else)

 

After the show started I looked around and practically everyone either had a small, digicam out, taking pictures or their cell-phone cameras, happily snapping away. I wasn't using the photos for commercial gain so I decided to just go for it, concluding I was being discriminated against because of my long lens! ;-) (only partly kidding!) Nobody tried to stop any of the other people taking pictures - and some of them were using flash, which is definitely a no-no.

 

Nobody stopped me and it really would've been hypocritical of someone to say I couldn't take pictures with my "big" camera (and no flash) when there were literally hundreds of people taking pics with their "little" ones - most of whom had much better seats and were very close to the stage and as I said, some of them were using flash.

 

If either Mr. Wooten or the venue management had clearly stated "no photography" then I wouldn't have brought my camera at all. So this particular case was, well... unique! And I'd *like* to think that, since I never made a dime off the photos, no one would mind. At least I hope that's the case!

It's a beast to lug around because it's so heavy - and obviously it's not a wide-angle - but the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS gets two thumbs-up from me.

 

Here are a few shots from a Victor Wooten concert - he's usually with Bella Fleck & The Flecktones but this was his band:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5304974

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5304975

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5304970

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5304967

 

I think I shot those with a 20D at f/2.8 and while it does pretty well at ISO 1600, newer DSLRs like the 1D3 would probably put it to shame at ISO 1600 and above, giving you even faster shutter speeds without excessive noise.

 

The thing about using a wide-angle lens (at least for me) is that using one would mean you're fairly confident you can get pretty darn close to the stage - which may very well be the case. If not though, a longer, reasonably fast zoom could prove quite useful. Good luck!

If nothing else a card reader will free up your camera so you can use it to take pictures instead of copying files. You also won't run your camera's battery down copying images. They also come in handy if you ever need to upgrade the firmware in your camera.

Hi Jennifer, I think you'll find most "serious" photographers will be using Photoshop. Yes, it's expensive but it's just become an industry standard. There are a few instances where you can get a much cheaper price - if you're a student, for example. I got a good price by getting a coupon in a scanner I bought to upgrade from Photoshop Elements to Photoshop for half-price.

 

Which brings me to Photoshop Elements, which is PS's "little brother" and is very good. It's *much* less expensive and has most of the same features - like layers and a RAW converter. So you might consider going that route and keep your eye open for any Adobe upgrade offers. Good luck!

There are also numerous Photoshop techniques one can use that, when done properly, look pretty much identical. I had my old 10D converted by Lifepixel but I'd never consider converting a new, 40D myself. Here are a few links - some are PS Actions - to convert a normal, color image into what appears to be an IR photograph:

 

http://www.nickgallery.com/web_pages/technical%2020.htm

 

http://www.leppphoto.com/learn/articles/infrared.htm

 

http://www.photographica.org/story/2006/2/7/112834/7418

 

Some older Sony digital cameras (F-707, F-717 and probably others) that have "Nightshot" mode work well - although Sony "crippled" them a bit by making the feature only available in "Auto" mode - so you can't manually adjust the aperture/shutter speed. There are other brands too, I'm sure. You may be able to find some of these on Ebay. I've also seen old, Canon 10Ds & 20Ds that have been converted for sale on Ebay upon occasion. If you go that route, I'd recommend looking for cameras that have been converted by Lifepixel because they do a great job. Good luck!