jkhansen

Hi, I read in a digital photography book that you should use daylight corrected light bulbs in the room

where you will be doing your photo editing. So, I bought and installed one of these bulbs, and boy does

the light look blue! Everything in the room has a blue cast, and even the white light shade housing the

bulb looks blue. I find the light to be very annoying and my eyes get tired after awhile. I'm not sure that

I want to use this as a light source for photo editing. Does anyone else have experience with this, and

what kind of bulbs do you use in your photo editing rooms? Thanks much.....

Hi AJ, I like 5274 and 4572. On 4572 I'd Photoshop out the goose tail on the extreme right

side. This one is actually my favorite. I like the framing. It goes against the advice that

animals should have "somewhere to go" in a photo, but I'm not one for rules. I also like

that it captures the motion of the gosling and it looks as if it's exploring its new world.

Thanks all. LOL, Ocean, but sometimes you miss a subject that is behind your back so

maybe pointing the lens away from the subject will net a better subject.

Hi all,

I'm in need of some quick instructions about using a polarizing filter. Somewhere I have instructions

that came with my filter, but for the life of me I can't find it, and now I'm leaving on vacation tomorrow

and am in a bit of a panic about how to use it. It's been a long time since I've had it on the camera. I

have a Hoya circular screw-on polarizing filter for my 58mm lenses that fit my Digital Rebel XT. I know

that best results are when the lens is pointing 90 degrees away from the sun. The question is, when

you turn the front of the filter after it is mounted, in which direction should the alignment line be

positioned for optimal results? I know that what you see is what you get, but is there a position that is

considered to be optimal? Many thanks...

Hi Angelica, welcome to the world of photography! You have found an excellent resource

here on photo.net. You might be confused by some of the discussion in the forum because

people tend to use a lot of lingo that you're probably not familiar with, so don't let this

forum be your primary source of education. As others have mentioned, there are excellent

articles out here that you can learn lots from. And don't be shy about asking questions on

this forum if you get confused about something. Most people are very friendly and helpful.

One thing you will want to do is not type your posts in all capital letters. Internet etiquette

considers this to be shouting and is considered to be pretty annoying and even rude.

I echo the advice to go to the library and get some good basic photography books. Make

sure you learn about aperture, shutter speed, and ISO and how changes in one affect the

other two. Also study depth of field and learn how focal length and aperture affects it.

I also recommend that you go buy a bunch of rolls of film and shoot them all. Get different

kinds of film and different ISO speeds so you can see the difference. I would recommend

that you go to a photography store, not a drugstore, to get as many different kinds of film

as you can. Just tell the person at the counter that you want to experiment with all kinds of

film and ask them to pick out 10 rolls or so. Get all color negative film, not slide film (even

though you may want to switch to slides at some point). Then find yourself a subject in

natural light that has lots of different colors and depth. Maybe get a couple of bunches of

mixed flowers and place one in front of the other on a table outside. You want some closer

to you and some further away so you can see how depth of field works with different

camera settings. I would shoot all 10 rolls of film just of these flowers. Put your camera on

a tripod so all your shots are taken from exactly the same distance. You can get cheap

tripods at camera stores, though my advice would be to spend a little more and get a

decent one. The staff at the camera store can help you. Get yourself a notebook, number

the rolls of film, and keep track of every shot and the settings you used for each one.

Track at least the shutter speed, f stop, which lens you used, and the lens focal length if

any of your lenses are zooms. If there are any other variables in your shots, track those

too. Keep the boxes that the film came in so you can see the specs of the film when you

get your pictures back. I would forget about the filters for this experiment, and don't

throw flash into the mix either. When you get your pictures back, you can compare your

notes to your results and compare how different settings affected your pictures. Study

these results like a science experiment and you will learn soooo much. Pay attention to

colors, depth of field, and how shutter speeds/apertures differ between different ISO films.

When you open your developed pictures for the first time, write on the back of each one

which roll of film was used so if you get them all shuffled together you can still tell them

apart.

I would wait to go digital. Learn your basics on film, then you will be better prepared to

pick out the right digital camera. I have found that switching from film to digital presents

quite a learning curve, and if I didn't already know the basics from film, I would have been

totally lost.

Above all, have fun!

Thanks everybody for all the info. I have recently switched to shooting RAW and I never

shoot in an automatic setting (I always shoot either Tv, Av, or M). I think I will run a series

of tests with using AWB vs. custom WB with a gray card and see how my results differ. I

can see where using custom WB in changing light would be a pain in the rear. However, I

am also of the mindset that I want to get the best possible image in-camera to reduce the

amount of post-processing.

Hi all,

I'm reading up on how to use custom white balance, and I'm confused. My Digital Rebel XT manual says

that an 18% gray card will give a more accurate white balance. I understand from reading other threads

that this is because white can be overexposed in some channels while a gray card will give accurate

exposure in all channels. Also, it seems to me that the very definition of white can vary. If you have 10

pieces of white paper, you can have 10 shades of white. So I understand that an 18% gray card is a

better benchmark. I have a Kodak 18% gray card, and it looks pretty dark to me. I don't understand how

the camera can establish white balance both from something white and something gray. Is the term

"white balance" itself a misnomer?

One other question, and perhaps this is stupid, but here goes: when you shoot the gray card or

something white to set custom white balance, should you go ahead and use TV or AV, or is there any

reason to shoot on fully automatic?

Thanks for your pearls of wisdom...

Colorado State Parks are not the best places in Colorado to see fall colors. Check out this

link instead: http://phototravel.com/sample/co_fall.htm.

I have been to most of these locations, and my personal pick is the Aspen/Crested Butte

Loop described. If you have a few days, this is the best area to go. The other places

described here are more strictly highway drives. The Aspen/Crested Butte Loop covers a

lot of ground and has plenty of places to get off the road and go exploring. Maroon Bells

is gorgeous but very crowded. Unless you hike into the back country, there is only a small

lake to accomodate busloads of people and it's hard to get a shot without a bunch of

tourists in the way. It is practically in Aspen city limits, so if you are in Aspen, it's worth

the trip. Go very early in the morning to avoid the shuttle bus (which is required during

most of the day - no cars are allowed). If you have the time, add Redstone and Marble to

this trip. Go north of Aspen to Carbondale, then cut back to the southwest to go to

Redstone and Marble. Be sure to take the dirt road to the marble quarry. But whatever you

do on this trip, don't miss Independence Pass.

I also love the Silver Thread Scenic Byway. There are plenty of four-wheeling roads when

you get to Lake City, so you can really get into the back country. Many of the four-wheel

roads take you to Ouray, which is one of the most gorgeous places in Colorado. If you

make it to Ouray, you cannot miss the Million Dollar Highway that runs between Ouray and

Silverton.

If you're coming to Colorado this month, be aware that Eisenhower Tunnel on I-70

(between Georgetown and Dillon) is under construction and you can expect two hour or

more delays. The construction runs from Sept. 10-29 (but you know how it always runs

long). You can take Loveland Pass to circumvent Eisenhower, but it is one lane in each

direction and will probably be quite congested. Avoid the entire area if possible. If I were

flying in to Colorado for fall colors this year, I would fly into Aspen, rent a car, and do the

entire Aspen area. Be sure to bring your credit card, ouch.

We have had a cool, wet summer here in Colorado, so the colors should be excellent this

fall. The higher you go, the earlier the colors peak, but you can generally count on the

third week of September through the first week of October unless snow knocks the leaves

off the trees first.

I hope I didn't get too off-topic here, just wanted to share what I know. Happy shooting!

Hello everybody,

I just wanted to share with you a book title that I'm reading that is most helpful to those switching from

film to digital SLR. The title is Digital SLR Photography Solutions by Sally Wiener Grotta and Daniel

Grotta. The book is from PC Magazine and the publisher is Wiley, but don't let the PC Magazine

association fool you. I am a Mac user and I find that this book gives equal time to PCs and Macs. It also

gives equal time to various image editing software, RAW conversion software, and camera

manufacturers. The publication date of 2006 means that all of the information is up-to-date. The book

has a lot of discussion of how digital is different from film and it includes technical information to help

you understand how digital works. It also gives a lot of information about dealing with your digital files

and staying organized during post-processing. Some photography basics are covered for those who are

new to photography. The book is in full color with lots of photos and excellent examples of the topics

being discussed. I paid $30 at my local independent bookstore, and it is worth every cent. The ISBN is

0-471-77320-4. Happy reading!

I always use a tripod, so don't really feel the need to get an IS. It's out of my price range at

the moment anyway. I think my problems are related to lens coating based on a couple of

threads I started a while back. I posted examples of my problem and there was quite

extensive conversation about it. The final consensus was that my lens is too old, too

cheap, and is not properly coated for digital.

I selected the four lenses I listed in my original post based on Canon's chart of EF lenses

from their web site. I chose these based on the focal length coverage I need (as wide as

possible through at least 80mm) and the filter size I need (52mm or 58mm). I can spend a

couple hundred or so, but I'm not willing to replace all my filters in addition to the cost of

the lens. I should have mentioned this in the first place, so my apologies for not being

crystal clear.

Thanks everybody. I'm using a Digital Rebel XT. I'm aware of the 1.6x magnification. And I

have actually done quite a bit of reading on these lenses but simply wanted opinions from

other people.

Thanks guys. I do mostly landscape, but I also like to do some close-up work with the

EF12 extension tube. Are there other lens recommendations I'm missing on my list?

Hi all,

I am looking to purchase a new lens and need a bit of help. The model numbers listed below are my

choices. I can of course tell which of these lenses are faster, but other than that, I don't know which

ones are better unless I use price as my guide. I also know what USM means, but I don't know if that

inherently makes a lens better or not. I also don't know what the difference is between Canon's II and III

series. I am replacing an old II series lens (EF 35-80mm f4-5.6 II), which does not seem to be

adequately coated for digital. I am looking for the best of these lenses that is for digital use. Thanks

very much for your help.

EF28-90mmf4-5.6 III; EF28-105mmf4-5.6; EF28-105mmf4-5.6 USM; EF28-105mmf3.5-4.5 II USM

Hi Jeff, just because the lenses FIT doesn't mean they'll WORK. I just switched from a film

Rebel to a Digital Rebel XT and am finding that although one of my Canon film lenses FITS

just fine, it is producing an internal reflection of the digital sensor on my shots. It results

in a light spot right in the middle of my pictures. The experienced people on the Canon

forum who have been helping me say that my film lens is not coated properly for digital,

so I am looking at replacing a lens, an expense I did not plan on!

Alistair, I believe you are right. I did some reading today on lens design that seems to

reinforce this point. Thank you for your helpful insight.

Thanks for all the input. I have not replicated the problem since the posted image was

taken. I have used other lenses with no spot showing up. I have not tried the lens on

another camera. And the picture was taken at Beaver Lake in Marble, Colorado.

Hi all, I posted this question in another forum, but we were unable to come to a consensus, so I'm

hoping there are some fresh ideas on this forum. I am using a Canon Digital Rebel XT, and all shots

described here were taken on a tripod with a Canon EF 35-80mm lens, no filter, and ISO 100. I took a

total of 31 shots over a few days. Nine of the shots had the problem I will describe momentarily, and

the other 22 shots were fine.

On the nine problem shots, there is a perfectly circular spot exactly in the middle of the shot. The spot

is consistent in its coloration, which is greenish-blue and is translucent. There are no hot spots within

the spot. Some of these nine photos were taken on an overcast day; some were taken on a partly cloudy

day. Two of these nine were at 35mm and seven were at 55mm. The photos with the worst spots are at

55mm, right in the middle of my zoom range. All seven shots were at f22 or smaller. A sample is

attached.

Of the 22 shots that did not have spots, 15 of them were taken at 35mm and seven are from 45 to

60mm. All of these 22 shots are at f18 to f29; 15 of them are at f22 or smaller (note the comparison to

the previous paragraph).

This spotting problem did not happen with other lenses. I have used this 35-80 lens on film for years

with no spotting. This is the first time I used this lens on the DSLR. Now I know that I shouldn't have

used such small apertures, but forgive me, I'm just learning digital and that's an old film habit. I know

that there are exposure problems on the attached sample, but I uploaded the example of the worst

spot. I bracketed all shots and have spots no matter the exposure. I don't think these spots are flare

because they are perfectly round and perfectly centered in all nine instances, there are no hot spots

within the spot, and many of these shots were taken on an overcast day. I don't think the spots are dirt

on my sensor because of the perfect symmetry, the coloration, and 22 shots (taken both before and

after the problem shots) did not have spots. A very helpful person on the other forum suggested that it

might be the rear element of my lens showing up on the sensor; however, the element is closest to the

sensor at 35mm, and the worst of the spots were at 55mm.

Does anyone have ideas on what caused the spots? Many thanks for bearing with this long post and for

your response.

On a digital photo, what does it look like when light has entered the viewfinder? Does it affect the

overall metering or can it appear as spots on the shot? If it can appear as spots, what do they look like?

Many thanks for your input.

I have not looked at the item you are considering, but I will share my experiences. I have

bought two things on EBay worth a few hundred dollars - one was a Bronica with lens and

accessories, and one was a sculpture. The Bronica seller swore that the camera spent its

life on a tripod in a studio and was in immaculate condition. The pictures seemed to

confirm this. He had little feedback, but it was positive. He was very responsive to my

questions and even went out of his way to hand write some instructions for me because

the manual was missing. I got the camera, and it had all kinds of problems with the

shutter, the lens, and one back. I spent another couple hundred getting it fixed. I had an

equally bum experience with the scuplture, but I'll spare you the details as this is not the

place to discuss art (but of course, photography IS an art). Bottom line for me is that I'll

never buy a high ticket item on EBay again, regardless of the feedback.

I stand corrected. I checked the EXIF data for all images with the light spot, and all were

taken with my Canon EF 35-80mm zoom lens. Two of the shots were at 35mm and seven

were at 55mm. The worst of them, by far, were at 55mm, right in the middle of the zoom

range. All nine shots were at f22 or smaller.

I checked the EXIF data for all non-spotted shots taken with this lens. There are 22 shots.

They are at f18 to f29; 15 of them are at f22 or smaller (note the comparison with the

previous paragraph). Fifteen of the shots are at 35mm; 7 are from 45 to 60mm.

So tell me, gurus, is the light spot a function of focal length or aperture or something else?

I'm having trouble seeing a pattern here.

Oh and BTW, I tried optimizing another image to post here. I had it down to 400 pixels on

the long side and maximum compression, and it was still over 100k. I was looking at the

file properties to get the file size. I am on a Mac, so maybe my mileage varies. I feel like

such an idiot with all this! I'm not a technophobe at all - I have a Mac laptop, a PC, a home

network, and my whole life is wireless. It's just that digital imaging is brand new to me.

Your Village Idiot,

Jeanne

Hi again, I will look at the EXIF data and post my results out here. I will let you know the

aperture and focal length. I think I know how to get to this data - if I have trouble I'll let

you know. I won't be able to get to this until tonight or maybe tomorrow because of

something else demanding my attention. I hate it when stuff gets in the way of

photography!

This is pretty bone-headed, I know, but there is something really basic I need help with.

When I posted an example picture on this thread a few days ago, I couldn't figure out how

to preserve the image quality (or some reasonable facsimile of it) and stay within the

parameters required by photo.net (511 pixels on the long side and under 100k). I started

out with a 2+ MB .jpeg and opened it in Photoshop Elements. I reduced the image

dimensions so it was 500 pixels on the long side. Then I did a Save As as another .jpeg

and kept increasing the compression until the image was under 100k. Then I posted it,

and wow what a piece of crap. Most of the images I see out here are nice and crisp. What

am I doing wrong?

Thanks again for your input and patience,

Jeanne

Hi Bruce and everyone, thank you for all the energy you are putting into my woes! To

answer your last question, Bruce, all shots with spots were taken with the 75-300 mm

lens. However, there were plenty of other shots taken with this lens where there were no

spots. Most of the spots occurred in bracketed shots of the same image. This is where the

spots are the worst, and these images were taken on an overcast day. Of the other three

shots with spots (all taken on a different day), one shot has a lot of glare, but the spot is

really faint. The other two shots are of different scenes, but both are of mostly clear skies,

mountains, and water is in one shot. The spots are faint in these two shots as well. In all

cases, the spot is exactly the same size, exactly in the center of the frame, and is a

translucent bluish-green.

Bruce, I am going to try your recommended exercise with different apertures to see what

happens. I think that is an excellent idea. Thanks. I will also take the advice of many who

have replied and shoot in RAW, plus I will try my hand at some post-processing in

Photoshop Elements. I bought a book on using a DSLR and have read until my eyes can't

take it anymore. I never thought my learning curve would be this steep coming from film.

It's frustrating because I felt that I had some pretty good tried-and-true techniques with

film, now they're worth bunk. After a few more tries with digital, if I'm still this frustrated,

I'm going back to film. BUT, you all have given me hope. I'm not as ready to cash it in as I

was the other day. I am very grateful for all the advice.

Jeanne