tim_dodd

If my maths is right, f/4.5 is 1.27 stops slower than f/2.8.

 

The calculation is : sqrt(4.5/2.8) = sqrt(1.6) = 1.27

 

So call it 1.33 for convenience, if your camera has 1/3 stop increments. If not then either 1.0 stop or 1.5 stops would be pretty close.

Pleasure to help :) I really don't understand what Canon was thinking with this release. I mean....

 

(a) Why on earth shouldn't it work under Vista? Who chose to disable cropping - Microsoft or Canon?

 

(b) Why doesn't Canon mention the simple workround?

The problem has not been fixed but there is an easy workround. If you run DPP 3.0.1.5 in XP SP2 compatibility mode within Vista then the functions work.

Ooops, sorry, I went a bit off topic (DPP). DPP did most of what I want/need and it is quite nice to be able to use it to play with in-camera settings like picture styles AFTER you've taken the photo. The weak points for me were the lack of a straightening feature and, having now used Lightroom, the lack of highlight recovery. At the price though, you really can't grumble. There is a new 3.01 version out to support Vista, and with a new noise handling tab, so the product is still being developed.

DPP was my editor of choice until I came across Lightroom and now I use that almost exclusively. My demands are fairly modest at the moment since I am still trying to improve my photographic skills and not my graphic design skills. I want tools to crop/straighten, adjust white balance, tweak levels and curves and clone out dust spots.

 

I have no interest, at the moment, in applying creative effects or spending hours adding layers and masking out bits and pieces of a photograph. I have tried Photoshop CS2 with Bridge and ACR a few times but really find Photoshop too much of a learning curve to spend the time. Lightroom gives me all i need and is quick and easy to use, with non-destructive editing of raw and jpeg files. By comparison Photoshop just seems like a lot of hard work.

I've never had a problem with the USB terminal on my 30D and I've had that for 11 months and always download from the camera as I don't have a card reader. The terminal is still snug. Tethered shooting (I was doing some just yesterday) is rock solid too.

 

I use any old USB lead lying around and very rarely the one supplied by Canon. My cable of choice normally, just because it is handy, is the one that came with my smartphone. The Canon one stays in my camera bag in case I need it when out and about or visiting people

The download here - http://www.exifpro.com/other_projects.html - will allow you to view 30D raw files in Windows XP File Explorer.

 

If you're running Vista then Canon now has a raw viewer codec for the Vista File Explorer which you can download from the Canon website - http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=SupportDetailAct&fcategoryid=215&modelid=12929 - click through to drivers/software.

Actually, to answer my own post, when I said all variants looked fine, that is not really true. I'm sure the differences represent what Canon had in mind but I would say that the Lightroom image takes top spot, followed by Canon Standard and Neutral picture styles, while the other picture styles definitely leave room for improvement.

Here are some comparative shots of raw files from my 30D processed using DPP and Lightroom. The pictures of the girl with the guitar were processed using DPP 3.0 and Lightroom running on Vista Ultimate. The earlier shots (without the guitar) were processed using DPP 2.2 and Lightroom running on XP Pro. There was no editing except to select different picture styles or white balance, as noted against each photo. One photo did have a small spot heal in Lightroom but none have any adjustment to curves. I did boost exposure on a couple of Lightroom pictures, as noted, to get a closer match to DPP.

 

The pictures of the girl with guitar give the most exact comparison as nothing was altered in that sequence except picture styles in DPP.

 

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/EezyTiger/DPPVsLightroomSkintones

 

While there are clearly differences in tone between each set of photos I wouldn't say that any show a sign of a sickly yellow/green skin tone. I think the Lightroom processing falls somewhere between DPP Standard and DPP Neutral colour and contrast and that makes it pretty much ideal for my tastes.

 

My LCD monitor is recently calibrated using Syder2Pro and the pictures look just fine to me (except those where I have manually set WB=Flash, which has clearly warmed up the appearance too much).

Have a look here....

 

http://www.adidap.com/2006/11/02/what-to-do-if-you-lost-your-canon-software-cd/

If anyone is interested I've posted some sample people shots processed by DPP and Lightroom, including indoor and outdoor settings. There are four photos in all, with 5 processing variations on each. The variations are....

 

1. Lightroom with no edits (one photo has some spot healing but that's it). WB=As Shot (Auto)

2. DPP with no edits. Picture style = Standard. WB=As Shot (Auto)

3. Lightoom +0.25 EC because the DPP version seem a little brighter

4. Lightroom on defaults but WB=Flash (some flash was used on all shots)

5. DPP on defaults but WB=Flash, just to normalise colour/tones

 

I have a colour managed monitor and to my eye the Lightroom versions without edits and with Lightroom with WB=Flash have the edge over the DPP versions and the Lightroom +0.25 EC.

 

At the end of the day I'm not sure what the point is of trying to match Lightroom skintones to DPP other than out of arbitrary interest. You can't really assert that the output from DPP is the "correct" one, since you can vary the appearance using Picture Styles, so which representation is truly "correct"? Surely the more important pursuit is either the most accurate,compared to the original scene, or the most appealing look. Of course, if, for you, DPP wins every time then emulating DPP in Lightroom seems a reasonable goal. An equal challenge would be to get DPP to match the output from Lightroom, but again I question whether there is any reason to bother. Test shots here.....

 

http://picasaweb.google.com/EezyTiger/DPPVsLightroomSkintones

I started using DPP last July and got on with it pretty well. The only big annoyance for me was the absence of a straightening tool. There were other smaller annoyances but as a tool to "fix" your photos it did the job well. I will be interested to see what's on offer in DPP 3.

 

I tried CS2, using combinations of Bridge, ACR and Photoshop but really never got on with it. It's just too fiddly to get fast results and I was not motivated to spend hours learning it. Layer this, layer that, mask the other - not my style. 27 different ways to sharpen something - forget it.

 

I've been using Lightroom since the last beta and now have the final product. It is very easy to use and gets me great results. It has pretty much everything I need for photo editing but none of the graphic design features of Photoshop. You can't do selective adjustments or cut and paste bits and pieces or add text etc but that's OK with me. I'm happy to take photographs and the use Lightroom to correct my failings or compensate for difficult lighting conditions. I have no interest in cocking about with my photos to give humans plastic looking skin or create false blurring of backgrounds etc.. I'm happy with Lightroom and now it's all I use.

Assuming you're using an EOS DSLR and not a P&S, you need to install the EOS Utility to allow remote capture (tethered shooting). The link from DPP under Tools is for the EOS Utility. If you haven't installed it then it seems reasonable that the option is greyed out. If you have installed it but it is not working then I'm afraid I don't know what to suggest. Canon do release periodic updates to their software so make sure you have the latest version downloaded from their website.

"I think there is a huge difference between taking your time, holding your breath, bracing against a couch and gently squeezing on the shutter, than just picking up the camera and firing away."

 

Yep, gotta agree with that. When I fired off my test shots I was making far more effort to be as steady as I could compared to my normal "grab a photo" style. That's probably where IS shows a bigger advantage - in every day shooting.

I ran a sequence of test shots with my 17-85 IS (at 85mm) from 0.8 seconds through to 1/40 second in 1/3 stops alternating IS and non-IS at each shutter speed. The results are here as 100% crops from the centre of focus....

 

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/EezyTiger/CanonEF1785F456ISUSMTest

 

I'd say the IS shots become useable from 1/3 sec and faster but not really sharp until 1/10 second. The non-IS shots are useable from 1/20 but not reliably sharp until 1/30 or faster.

 

Given the old rule of 1/focal length for minimum shutter speed - i.e. 1/85 (or should that be 1/136 allowing for the crop?) - I think a steady handheld shot at 1/3 or even 1/10 second is pretty remarkable.

 

I know this is only one sample of tests and perhaps after a couple of coffees I'd get different results but I'm very happy with IS on my lens.

 

Here's a shot taken handheld at 1.6 seconds. I know I've blown the highlights but the image isn't too bad given the exposure time for a handheld shot....

 

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/EezyTiger/200607Egypt/photo#5041540069003908562

Try using Flash Exposure Lock - press the "*" button with your partial metering area aimed directly at the subject you want exposed correctly. Then you can recompose if need be but your flash will expose for your subject and not be thrown off by peripheral reflections.

IMHO the second photo is "underexposed" because the flash has quenched early due to the reflections from the background which are completely blown. The background should be changed, or the subject moved, or a different angle selected for the photo, or bounced or diffused flash should have been used, or all of the above. The subject maybe underexposed but the photo as a whole most certainly is not.

p.s. If you have the facilities to post process then I recommend you shoot in raw to give you more flexibility to adjust shadow and highlight detail without degrading the image. I sued to be pretty happy with DPP, supplied by Canon with the 30D, but have now taken to Lightroom, which has far finer control and some handy automation to fix your (my!) dodgy exposures :)

Simon, I feel your pain. I've been suffering a steep uphill learing curve with my 30D and a 580EX flash. The Canon camer and flash manuals really do not explain what is going on in te various exposure modes.

 

Basically, what is happening is that in Av, Tv and P modes the camera attempts to pick a combination of aperture and shutter that will expose the background (more or less the whole scene in effect) correctly and add flash to fill in on your subject to relieve shadows or compensate for backlighting.

 

In P mode the shutter speed is constrained to be between 1/60 at the slowest, and your max flash sync speed at the fastest. This is to keep the shutter speed from dropping too low and leading to too much subject/camera blur. This is probably the closest thing to a reular P&S camera, which will typically underexpose the background and give you a highly exposed subject. Because the shutter speed cannot be longer than 1/60 in P mode you may also find that the background is underexposed in your shots - but the subject should be OK.

 

In Av mode the camera will try to expose the whole scene corretly and will choose whatever shutter speed it thinks it needs between 30 seconds and your max synch speed. This is why you are seeing shutter speeds of 1/13 secs in Av mode. That's what the camera would require without a flash gun. Actually, in Av mode it can get a touch more complicated than that because the camera may try to reduce the background exposure by 0.5-1.0 stops to avoid overexposing the subject or scene when flash is added. But if the camera wants a long exposure that is what you will get in Av mode.

 

Tv mode is a bit like Av except this time the camera will choose whatever aperture it requires to expose the background correctly, within the constraints of your aperture range at the given ISO speed.

 

In your situation the best solution is probably to stick with P mode to keep the shutter speed within sensible limits and use exposure compensation to fine tune the background exposure. You can then use the flash in ETTL mode to add whatever extra light you need to illuminate the subject and scene as a whole. You can also fine tune the flash exposure with Flash Exposure Compensation and effectively you have complete control over the relative strengths of ambient light vs flash.

 

Alternatively you can shoot with manual exposure to select exactly the shutter speed and aperture you want for particular control of DOF and movement and let the flash do its thing to fill the gap in lighting. Use FEC if you don't like the results.

 

I didn't see mention of your ISO settings but you could comfortably go up to 1600 for regular prints up to A4 (Maybe not for posters) and use Noise Ninja or Neat Image to reduce the noise in the final photo.

 

For indoor flash your best bet is probably to bounce the flash off the ceiling/wall (if the colour is neutral) and also fit a bounce card to reflect light forward as well as up. See http://www.abetterbouncecard.com/ for instruction on constructing a bounce card for a few pence.