carmen_m

<p>Both photos taken in Primrose Hill. I've actually sharpened the pics in Photoshop, the far away objects don't look as sharp in the original files. I just need some guidance whether I got the concept right.<br>

Does the rule of focusing 1/3 through apply even when the 'foreground' is very far away (e.g. at infinity?)<br>

Thanks :)</p>

<p>I'm not quite sure where to focus using my 70-200mm lens with Canon 550d in order to get everything in focus. I always find the background is still not sharp even at f11. These two photos illustrate my problem.</p>

<p>On the first one I focused on the people sitting down and the BT tower is not quite sharp (the people were very far away so I zoomed in at 200m and I assume the focus was at infinity?).</p>

<p><img src="http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs520.ash1/30602_1448244932989_1439180676_31180548_4373733_n.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="396" /></p>

<p>Same thing with this next one. I focused on the family in the foreground (they were far away so I zoomed in to 200mm and used f11 but the people at the top of the hill were not quite sharp).</p>

<p><img src="http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash2/hs139.ash2/40277_1590833457613_1439180676_31554449_4856948_n.jpg" alt="" width="465" height="600" /></p>

<p>I have some understanding of the concept of focusing 1/3 into the image to get the foreground and background into focus but I thought this applies if you have something in the foreground (e.g. reasonably close) but with both of these images my 'foreground' is actually VERY far away!</p>

<p>Also, with the first image, there's actually nothing between the people sitting down and the BT tower in the background so if the rule of focusing 1/3 through still applies, how am I meant to put it into practice with this sort of situation?</p>

<p>Thank you :)</p>

<p>I just got the Spyder 3 Pro and tried calibrating my Dell 1520 laptop (I know laptop screen are less than ideal for photo processing but budget won't allow getting a separate screen). Contrast and brightness and other controls were set to default via the nVidia panel under the 'Display' section. Backlight was set to max using the laptop keys. Went to a darkish room with no windows with minimum light coming in from the other room (from behind the laptop).<br>

Before calibration: the white was very bright (without being hard on the eyes), grays (like firefox menus) were cool<br>

After calibration using 2.2 gamma/6500k: considerably darker, got an overall bluish cast (the white looked the most bluish) and much cooler colours than the uncalibrated version<br>

After calibration using 2.2 gamma/native white point: somewhat darker than the uncalibrated version but brighter than the 6500k version, warmer tones, especially grays and white looks like a warm white without being as bright as the uncalibrated bright.<br>

To my untrained eye the Native point calibration looks best but I've read many threads where 6500k calibration is recommended over the native white point one.<br>

Any advice?<br>

Thanks</p>

Oh, I didn't know that they close at Christmas. Bummer.

Hello,

 

I'm going to Vienna in between Xmas and New Year's and I wanted to get some tips on photographing the Christmas

market at evening time. It will probably be (fairly) busy so I thought I'd take a few shots on tripod with a

shutter speed as long as possible (@ F11 ISO 100 and polarizer to act as an ND filter) to blur out the people.

What do you think? The downside is that setting up tripod in a crowded space isn't that easy. Other ideas? Oh, I

have the 350D plus the 24-105 L

 

Thanks!

So for landscape photography mirror lockup might be unecessary? What about at dawn/dusk or at night?

That's a 100% crop, I should have probably mentioned that.

 

I have tried the newspaper on the wall test but with mirror lockup disabled. Image was not as sharp at 200mm as it was at 70mm. Plus, as careful as I was, I cannot be 100% sure that the paper was parallel with the camera. Same with the dreaded 45 degrees test...

Hello,

<br /><br />

I own a 350D and have just bought a Canon 70-200 4/L (could not afford the IS

version) which I have done some tests with. All tests have been done with tripod

(Manfrotto 190xprob, head plate attached to Canon tripod ring) and wireless

remote release.

<br /><br />

 

I have taken some photos at dusk at 200mm @ 0.6 seconds, ISO 100. I figured this

combination would be ideal to test mirror lockup effects on image quality. To my

surprise, I see absolutely no difference when mirror lockup is enabled or

disabled.... maybe it's my eyes?

<br /><br />

Both pictures seem just as sharp (see below). I was under the impression that

mirror lockup would remove vibrations which affect image quality especially at

telephoto end. Does this mean my tripod is particularly sturdy? Needless to say

I don't mind in the least, I was just curious why this happens.

<br /><br />

<img src="http://www.mardiros.net/mirror.jpg">

 

<br /><br />

One other thing, I originally set the lens on MF @ infinity and all the pictures

turned out blurred. They all turned out sharp when I use AF mode. The fact that

the infinity indicator is not precise worries me, how can I make sure I get

sharp pics when lens is manually set @ infinity?

<br /><br />

Thanks

Here's one with highlights/shadows. I'd like natural looking results which means some shade should be present but this looks so bad in its current state.

Here's one example where I exposed for a bloom that would have otherwise turned out white.

Thanks. I don't have an external flash unfortunately. I did use the technique Ken mentioned to pick out an isolated bloom but that doesn't work for every case.

For those of you who don't know, Keukenhof is a large park with lots of flowers,

mostly tulips. After my first trip there last year, I noticed that taking

pictures there is not as easy as I originally thought which is why I'm seeking

suggestions for my next trip to Holland in April.

 

The park has lots and lots of trees which means that the flower beds themselves

are in the shade, more specifically, in irregular shade from the trees, which in

bright sunlight causes the dynamic range of the scene to be more than my Canon

350D can capture.

 

I've tried my best not to burn the highlights on my first trip but, of course,

it didn't always work (if you have only a few spots in very bright sunlight, in

order to preserve detail in those spots, I have to make the rest of the picture

darker). I always shoot RAW and I found that I had to adjust the contrast to Low

for a more balanced look.

 

I love sunny days but in this instance, I'm almost wishing for a dull day unless

there's some technique I could use. Perhaps HDR? (I will have a tripod with me).

The trouble is it's very very busy with people so I'll get blurs in the final HDR.

 

I will also be there first thing in the morning to take advantage of the low

sunlight but the park is very large so it's unlikely that I'll finish in a

couple of hours. Can you also give me some tips on shooting at noon when shadows

are harsh?

 

Any suggestions are greatly appreciated.<div></div>

Hmm, didn't know the 28-135 is as short as a 5x optical zoom on a compact digicam. I just had a look at Canon G9 on dpreview and it's got 6x optical zoom (35 mm - 210 mm equiv). The 28-135 ends up a 44-216 on my 350D. Am I missing something?

 

I'm not really happy with the kit lens. Since I posted my question, I read about about the Tamron 17-50 and seems a good replacement for my kit lens. Quality seems a bit better than 17-85 even if it's not as convenient.

 

If 28-135 is less than 5x, then the 17-85 is definitely TOO short so I'm left with choosing the 28-135 or the 70-200 to complement it. Trouble is the 70-200 is so darn long, and, I imagine, quite bulky.

 

Decisions, decisions... :)

 

Thanks

Hello,

 

I own a 350D with kit lens and a 50mm 1.4. I've got my eyes set on a canon 17-85

because I've found I dread changing lens and this would be the best walkaround

lens for my needs. However, there will be occasions when I need a longer zoom so

I need to buy another lens.

 

At first I had a look at canon 28-135 but realised later the 135 would be

equivalent to about 6x on a compact digital (my previous camera was a G5), is

that correct? If that's all I'd be gaining, there wouldn't be much point getting

another lens, now wouldn't there? It wouldn't be long enough.

 

That leaves Canon 70-200 F4 to consider or a different combination of lens.

 

 

I have thought about getting just the 28-135 and keeping the 18-55 kit lens for

the wide angle (I tend to use it at F8 most of the time anyway to make the most

of its sharpness) but I'm hoping image quality on the 17-85 would be better

overall. Plus, with this combination, I'd find myself changing lens far more

often than with the 17-85.

 

Can you help with suggestions? I suppose I could stretch it and get the 70-200

as well as the 17-85 but I don't like throwing money out the window.

 

Thanks

I know that which is why this would probably only work with open landscapes.

Looks like I don't have a choice but eventually buy two lenses - one for the wide angle one for the telephoto. Since I can't afford them at the moment, both will have to wait.

 

For the wide-angle I might opt for the 10-22mm and the 70-200mm for the tele (IF I can manage to save enough in a year's time for both of them).

 

This just occured to me but I'm not sure if it would work. Would it be possible to obtain a similar effect to a wide-angle lens by stitching up 4 frames taken with a 50mm prime lens? This could work for open landscapes but what would happen to shots where there's something interesting in the foreground (I know wide-angle emphasize the foreground).

 

It would sure be a very nice temporary solution until I can afford to buy another lens! I'd have to learn how this technique works and I'd also need a sturdy tripod (not the flimsy one I have - can anyone recommend a sturdy but light tripod - being a girl I don't fancy bulky ones).

 

Thanks!

 

PS: this forum is great, I'm learning so much!

Thought I'd be clearer and say that while I know what I want to shoot, there's always room for improvement/experimenting but my budget, while not incredibly tight, is limited. Wide angle would be nice :)

Thank you all for your help. Things are getting a little clearer now.

 

Robin, thanks for your tips on Scotland. I should have mentioned that I know Scotland very well having spent 4 touristy summers there and traveled all over the place from the Borders to Wester Ross and Skye. I know Edinburgh like the back of my hand in terms of best photo spots, time of day etc. I want to go back with a better camera and take much better pictures. This is why I wanted to compare the G5 pics in term of focal length. I already know what I want to take :)

 

My interest is in landscapes and cityscapes, less in wildlife although stray sheep nearly falling over the cliffs of Skye or sheep chased by a dog on a Highland road does make for interesting photography :).

 

I'm pretty sure I can't afford a 10-22mm or the 17-40mm JUST for the sake of a wider angle zoom which makes the available options quite limited.

I must have crossed replies with MarkU. So I'll multiply it by 3.

 

MarkU, yes, a wide angle is nice but so is a zoom for castles, lonely pine trees, boats, etc. I don't expect to shoot wildlife though. Decisions, decisions.... I do have the kit lens as well but from what I understand at 18-20mm it's soft on the edges. What other lens are there?

I didn't know that I had to point the camera down when changing the lens. Why is that? I've changed the lens 3 times so far but never pointing the camera down (twice I was indoor, once was outdoor).

Thank you John for your response. The trouble is even the 4x my G5 seemed too short. I had a teleconvertor to increase zoom at 7x and that worked well when there was enough light and no subject movement at the tele end.

 

I am considering the 28-105 (not the L version, can't afford that just yet) or the 28-135 but I'm not sure which to get.

 

I'd like to find a way to compare the focal length of the G5 with a lens for my 350D - to see what zoom range I used most and to figure out whether it's worth spending more on extra mm.

 

Would it be safe to say, based on your comments, that the G5 coverage at 14.4mm is the same as 57.6mm on the 350D?

 

Thanks

I know people are advised to use the kit lens first in order to figure out what

lens they really need.

 

I take lots of pictures when traveling, cityscapes, landscapes, etc and I won't

do much of that in the next 6 months or so. I have done it in the past few years

and my workhorse has been a Canon G5. I am preparing and learning for a 5-week

photo trip to Scotland next year and I can't afford to use THAT as a learning trip.

 

I was wondering, based on the pictures I took with the G5 can I figure out what

sort of lens to buy next for my 350D?

 

The shooting style and composition of pictures won't change dramatically so I

was wondering if looking at the focal length used to take those pictures (I have

thousands) is helpful. At the moment I feel I'll need significantly more zoom

but maybe the pictures will tell me something else.

 

The G5 has 35-140 mm according to dpreview. I tried looking in Zoom Browser at

the shooting info of pics taken with it and here's what it says

Lens: 7.2-28.8mm

Focal lengh: 14.4mm (one example).

 

I'm totally confused. What can I make out of this? Is this comparison even

relevant? Any tips are greatly appreciated.

I'm new to the DSLR world but I already have 2 lenses, the kit lens and the 50mm

1.4 but I find myself shooting with the 50mm one most of the time because I'm

afraid that by changing the lens I risk letting dust in the camera, etc.

 

Can anyone give me some good practice tips on how to change the lens outdoors to

minimize the risk of something going wrong (dropping it, having wind blow in

dust, etc) especially when you need to change them fast.

Thanks

<p>I've been reading a lot lately on exposure, the zone system, metering, etc

but the more I read, the more confused I get (even though I know my aperture and

shutter speed). I recently got a Canon 350d and would love to take great

pictures with it. So... this is what I've understood so far. Feel free to

correct me if I'm wrong.</p>

 

<p>If the scene has contrasting subjects (dark or bright) which may make the

camera incorrectly judge the correct exposure values then:</p>

 

<p>- find a small scene section which is approx 18% gray (in terms of reflected

light) and use Partial metering to meter the exposure off it, lock it, reframe

and take the photo using that EV (I read somewhere that your hand is approx that

tone so for close-ups you can meter off it?).</p>

 

<p>The above may not work when incident light on the 18% gray section is

different to that falling on the subject you're interested in (say a

snow-covered mountain). Then:</p>

 

<p>- pick the subject that you're most interested in capturing (either bright or

dark) and try to place it in one of the 9 zones (of the zone system). If the

subject, you guess, falls in Zone III, then underexpose the Partial metering

reading by 2 stops to obtain correct exposure. I feel this is very tricky and

requires a lot of real-world experience.</p>

 

<p>Another suggestion I came across is to meter the brightest part of the scene

and the darkest part of the scene with the Partial mode and somehow (not sure

how!) find the middle-ground betweek them (say the difference between the two is

4 stops... the middle would be 2 stops?). But what if the difference between the

two (this is called dynamic range I believe) is too much for the camera's

sensor? What then?</p>

 

<p>I've used a Canon G5 until recently (always in full manual mode) and hated

how in difficult lighting situations I got either underexposed or overexposed

images but the most frustrating part was how the edge between bright and dark

turned out washed out and fuzzy (like edge of a mountain against a whitish

sky).</p>

 

<p>The conditions I find most difficult are when its overcast and you need to

shoot something that's above head-level (a castle, building, statue, etc). I

can never get that right! The question is, even if you do expose properly, can I

still expect parts of the picture to be (severely) over or underexposed?</p>

 

<p>Case in point:</p> <img src="http://www.photo.net/photo/pcd1961/bodie-13.2.jpg">

 

<p>How would you take this picture (with me, the front wheel would probably turn

out dark and the back wheel ok OR the front wheel would turn out ok and the back

wheel would turn out too bright). Or when you're in the shade and the subject is

not.</p>

 

<p>Now, Easter is aproaching and I'd like to learn how to take pictures in the

following conditions (very little light): </p>

 

<img src="http://cameramm.ro/administrare/magazin/mari/mnd-2004-04-11-0042.jpg">

 

<p>I have the 50mm f/1.4 lens but even with that, I'm not sure whether I can

take such a picture hand-held (and people do tend to move). Regarding exposure,

my quess would be to meter off the woman and underexpose by 2 stops (or more?).</p>

 

<p>Any suggestions or references are much appreciated! Thank you for your

patience!</p>

 

<p>Carmen</p>