thomasmckown

<p>Good points, Wouter. Regarding RAW, I have actually pushed single exposures far enough to bring back shadow detail while maintaining sky details for shots that absolutely require one shot. (Such as an outdoor wedding.) The only trick here is that you must underexpose as to not lose highlights, but you must also keep in mind that underexposing and correcting in post production will add noise. Actually, it seems to be worse than shooting at high ISO. This is why when using this technique, you must try to shoot at the lowest possible ISO to achieve a fast enough shutter speed so as to avoid motion blur.<br>

<br /> The 60D does also have a faster frame rate than the Rebel series which can be a major advantage for scenes that need to be captured fairly quickly, although as you stated, still not typically fast enough for moving subjects. I can usually get people to hold still long enough for 3 shots on my 5D (which has about the same frame rate as my Rebel XTi) but I am really looking forward to trying out a 7D just for its 8 frames per second.<br>

<br /> As for typical landscapes, which are for the most part static subjects (with a few exceptions), you can usually get by with just about any camera, even entry level, and still get great quality and plenty of dynamic range as long as you have your techniques down.<br>

<br /> As for the last point about handling. This matters to some more than others. For some it is absolutely vital that the camera be comfortable to hold because they plan on holding that camera all day (such as photojournalists). To others (like myself), the camera could be shaped like a cube with no handles and as long as the image quality is the best available for the available budget, it wouldn't matter. This kind of thinking can lead one down the path of large format view cameras... This brings me to my point. If you plan on using a tripod for the most part (which is typical with HDR photography) it is likely to not matter so much how the camera feels in your hands. As long as you have no attachments to the other feature upgrades that come with the more expensive body, you will still maintain the same level of image quality, only with more of a budget for a better lens. The better lens will typically mean a very noticeable increase in sharpness and contrast. This is yet one more factor to consider.</p>

<p>To my knowledge, all of the current Canon cameras allow you to shoot only 3 bracketed shots using AEB (auto exposure bracketing). If you want to shoot 5 shots to cover more dynamic range, unfortunately the only way that I know to achieve this is by shooting the first set 2 stops underexposed and the second set 2 stops overexposed. This will leave you with 2 properly exposed shots, one of which you can scrap to leave you with a total of 5 shots. This gives you more range. (Instead of about 5 stops with 3 shots, you would get about 9 stops with 5 shots.)</p>

<p>As for image quality, you really should not see a distinguishable difference in shots between the T2i, 60D or the 7D. They are all comparable in both quality and resolution. The real difference between these cameras is in the features. If you are solely after image quality and not things like build quality, autofocus, size, and frame rate, I might suggest the Rebel. If price is no object, you may be happier with a better built camera with more features.</p>

<p>I shot for years with an XTi and the image quality was quite great even by today's standards. I actually still shoot with it along side my 5D. I have seen and personally taken some HDR pictures with the XTi that more than satisfied my needs. The T2i is more advanced and higher resolution than the XTi, IMO making it MORE than adequate for this style of photography. Go get yourself one of these tools of the trade, whatever it might be, and start learning what inspires you. You wont regret it!</p>

<p>PS<br>

If you are interested in HDR photography, you will also need the right software. Are you familiar with Photomatix? This is a great tool for merging exposures. I have slowly developed a preference for manual blending in Photoshop using layer masks, but to each his own. Good Luck!</p>

<p>Gabriel, i just read your post, I actually didn't realize that the Tokina was sharper! That is good to know, I will have to research this lens now, haha.</p>

<p>Mahyar, there have been side by side comparisons between the Canon 10-22 and the Canon 17-40L that seem to conclude that they are actually almost identical in terms of overall image quality. I used to own the 10-22 and traded it for a 17-40 when I moved to the 5D and I have been extremely happy with both lenses. The two lenses really do compare closely. In fact, some tests have found the 17-40L to actually be sharper than the more expensive 16-35L lens if that gives you an idea of the caliber of these two lenses. Some of the most well known landscape photographers here on PN use either the 17-40L or 16-35L on their full frame cameras, and the 10-22 stands up well to both of those lenses for a cropped frame.</p>

<p>It depends on the style you are after. Telephoto lenses are more typically used for only certain types of shots, such as a zoomed in shot making the sun look larger against a distant scene. Landscapes usually utilize wider angles to incorporate more of the surrounding scene. Right here on photo.net, look up the works of <a href="../photodb/member-photos?user_id=1353935">Marc Adamus</a> , <a href="../photodb/member-photos?user_id=602670">Camilo Margeli</a> , <a href="../photodb/member-photos?user_id=779038">Tomas Casper</a> , <a href="../photodb/member-photos?user_id=3838934">Chip Phillips</a> , and many many more landscape photographers. They typically use wide angle lenses such as the 17-40L or 16-35L lenses.<br /> <br /> Now, since you use a cropped sensor camera, you may be interested in getting a wider lens such as the Canon EF-S 10-22 which would give you about the same field of view as the 16-35 on a full-frame camera like the 5D. I started with an XTi (400D) and a 10-22 and eventually moved to a 5D and 17-40. I like wide, that is my taste. But be sure you like this style though before you invest in wide angle lenses, it could be that you prefer more normal focal lengths.</p>

<p>If you decide to go wide, these lenses should be considered:<br /> Canon EF-S 10-22, (only for cropped sensor cameras) about $700 <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/351542-GREY/Canon_9518A002_EF_S_10_22mm_f_3_5_4_5_USM.html">link</a> <br /> Or consider the Sigma 10-20, (only for cropped sensor cameras) about $480 <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/381610-REG/Sigma_201101_10_20mm_f_4_5_6_EX_DC.html">link</a> <br /> For more zoom although not nearly as wide, the Canon 28-135 IS, about $400 <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/149629-GREY/Canon_2562A002AA_EF_28_135mm_f_3_5_5_6_IS.html">link</a> <br /> Canon 17-40L, about $730, <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/279582-GREY/Canon_8806A002_EF_17_40mm_f_4L_USM.html">link</a></p>

<p>Also, keep in mind that these can all be picked up used for less money at places like fredmiranda.com, adorama.com, keh.com, and even ebay.com if you dare shop there, haha. Fredmiranda.com is a good place to read user reviews of lenses as well.<br /> I'm sure there will be some other good recommendations in the following posts as well. Happy shopping! Think long and hard before you purchase.</p>

<p>I kind of got caught up in the body and pretty much forgot about lenses, haha. For a cropped camera, some really popular landscape lenses are the Canon 10-22mm, 17-40f4L, 24-70f2.8L, 24-105f4L, and a whole bunch of primes. The 10-22 is the cropped camera's equivalent to the 17-40 in terms of image quality, price, and equivalent field of view. It is also very easy to resale if you switch to full-frame later (which is what I did.) For some people, that range is a bit too wide and they prefer the 24-70 or 24-105. Both excellent lenses. Anything you buy, keep in mind that you will probably have it much longer than your camera body because the technology in bodies changes so rapidly. There are also many specific lenses to consider. For example, I use a Sigma 20mm f1.8 for all of my star pictures. That lens made it possible for me to shoot stars the way that I do. The 5D helped a little more when I got it by allowing me to go to ISO 3200. It was a little cleaner and the FOV was wider, but it wasn't as big of a help as the ability to go to f1.8 or f2.0.</p>

<p>The 5DII is pretty amazing, especially at high ISO. BUT, you might be surprised at what you can do with a 500D and some good lenses. I've seen some simply amazingly beautiful pictures that came from the 300D and a relatively modest lens. Nice gear is a great thing, but the right techniques and knowledge will go much further. I would recommend learning how to use your camera before you try to buy your way in. Then buy what you need to accomplish what you want to. I shot for years with a 400D and the first upgrade I made was to buy a 10-22mm lens because I wanted to be able to shoot wide angles. I eventually upgraded with several new lenses and then to the 5D when my needs required something that would handle high ISO's better. I also wanted the extra shallow DOF so the 5D was a perfect match. You will appreciate your equipment more if you take your time and buy each piece with a specific purpose or goal in mind. In my experience, it's the impulse buys that make you wish you did your research first.<br>

Congrats on the new camera! Just remember to have fun with your new toy and don't get too caught up with what it can't do as much as with what it can.</p>

<p>High ISO settings is definitely the cause of the grainy look. Nikon's camera's have been known to be quite noisy especially at higher ISO until their more recent higher end models. You probably don't want to shoot any higher than ISO 800. You might want to try learning about basic exposure and camera settings. There is a lot of information here at photo.net in the learning section. (http://www.photo.net/learn/) Also, there are plenty of resources online for learning about Photoshop if you take the time to search. The Luminous Landscape is a great place to learn more advanced techniques. (www.luminous-landscape.com) Another great learning place for artificial lighting is Strobist. (www.strobist.blogspot.com) They teach about lighting settings and equipment. And for camera reviews and forums, you might want to check out Digital Photography Review. (www.dpreview.com) There they discuss the technical aspects of digital cameras and which ones perform better than others.</p>

<p>I'm not sure how taxes are handled in the UK, but here in the US you do not have to report your payments as income until you have earned a total of $500. At that point you have to start reporting it as part of your income. I would recommend talking to whoever prepares your taxes and find out what your requirements are. Over here you can go to places like H&R Block and get all sorts of free information regarding small business. Everything from charts and bookkeeping sheets to rules on what needs to be payed tax-wise. I am only 23 and have just started learning about small business as well. I'm finding out that there is a little to learn, but it's certainly not rocket science. As long as you keep good documents of your spending and income, you should be in good shape.</p>

<p>One thing you might want to consider if you want to get both the foreground and sky exposed properly is learning how to use graduated neutral density filters. These are filters that are clear on one side and fade into a tinted glass on the other. They compensate for bright skies. Here is a link to a blog I ran across that explains a little bit about them. <a href="http://singhray.blogspot.com/2009/09/before-choosing-which-nd-grads-to-start.html">Adam Barker Photography</a> .</p>

<p> I clicked the link expecting the usual mediocre-at-best pictures, but you actually did a wonderful job documenting the event! I would be happy to show the entire set. I see that you used a Nikon D700, but I'm curious to know what else you used. Some of the shots look like there is a flash.<br>

I'm actually about to shoot a wedding for a friend the first time as well, but Ill have two assistants helping me, haha. Its encouraging to see that a first attempt at something new can still be well done. Very nice work!</p>

<p>I actually really like your blog. I downloaded the poladroid software you linked to and love it! I think it's important to have valuable links and information in your blog and you have done this successfully in yours. The only thing that I see as a negative is the fact that I didn't know about it. This is where most photographers struggle with their blogs and websites. Keep advertising it though, because now I am hooked. That's one more reader you didn't have just by requesting a review here on PN.</p>

<p>There are a lot of cheap no-name copies of common lens hoods on ebay.com, but I have never tried them. I hear they don't fit as well as the name brand ones, but many people say they do work well enough. Most common problem is that they seem to either have a tight or loose fit. If this doesn't bother you, you might try one out for yourself.</p>

<p>Charles, good points. I will keep that in mind as well. I may stick with what Ive got for now.</p>

<p>Thanks Kent, Ill keep at it. And thanks all for the advice!</p>

OK then. I have business cards, and I already use the domain ThomasMcKownPhoto.com. I was being told by a lot of people that I just need to lose the last name because its a poor name for people to remember. People I know dont even get it right most of the time. The point that word of mouth is a great form of advertising locally, but nobody could refer people to me without a business card handy was also made. I guess Im over thinking it, but asking everybody I know, changing the name was a generally agreed opinion. I personally dont like "photography by ____" because its so commonly used. It also seems that there are a million photogs that use their names, and its harder to stand out in the sea of peoples names. Most of the top photogs in my area use a company name that is simple, easy to remember, and un-intimidating to say to the common person. If they are personal names, they are simple names. I think Im just cursed with a name that isnt very marketable, haha. But I could be wrong. Maybe my best option would be to buy TDMPhoto.com and redirect it to my website, I dont know.

I am currently using "ThomasMcKownPhoto.com" but my problem with that is that nobody (Dr.s included) can either say or spell the name "McKown" correctly. Nobody can ever find my website because they cant remember how to spell the name. I really would like something that is easy to remember, easy to spell, and not intimidating to try to say correctly. Thanks for the suggestions though, its hard to judge your own thoughts sometimes without feedback.

<p>Ive been trying to come up with a good name for my photography company, and so far have not been able to. After some advice and suggestions from friends and a lot of thought on my own, I have a couple ideas. I have searched for available domains as well and they are hard to come by but these particular ones are open. Its really hard to come up with any good available domains so dont steal my ideas until I decide! :P (Im joking but still serious...)<br>

Anyway, which of these ideas sound better to you?<br>

- InnovativeCapture.com - BetterCapture.com - and - CaptureTheWorld.net - (".com" is taken and the owner if this blank website wont respond to my emails....)<br>

Also if you have suggestions, lets have em!</p>

<p>I used to own the Canon 10-22 and sold it when i got a 5D and 17-40L. My copy of the 10-22 lens was very sharp, very comparable to the 17-40L (which is actually sharper than the Canon 16-35L). Id obviously recommend the Canon since the quality is top notch and it is very sharp, but if you are on a budget, go with whatever you can afford. The bigger aperture to me wasnt as big of a deal as sharpness was since I mostly shoot landscapes on a tripod. The only wide angle lens with a wide aperture I needed was my Sigma 20mm f1.8 for stars and the night sky. Of course, if you really need that wide aperture, buy what serves your needs best.</p>

<p>My opinion is that you are better off being known as a specialist of a particular type of work than being known for being mediocre at many different types of work. If weddings are your thing, you should work very hard at being the best at that. If you dont want to do commercial work, dont. I like the previous suggestion by Aaron that you refer someone who wants a service you dont specialize in to somebody who does specialize in that area. That way everybody wins. Do what you love and do it well. You will be much happier doing this than trying to tackle everything that comes your way.</p>

<p>I have a set of th Kenko's and they work just fine. Since there is no glass, there really isnt an image quality issue. I rarely use them though because I have found that most of the time my Canon 100mm f2.8 macro lens is good enough. It was a bit pricey, but for how well it does, I think it was worth every penny.</p>

<p>Id be interested in the image and focus tests. I just bought the non-HSM and would like to know how the HSM version compares to both it and the Canon version. I plan to upgrade to the Canon in the future, but if the HSM version of the Sigma compares well, I might consider it instead.</p>

<p>I would say go with a Rebel. I shoot with a 5D for my main camera and I find that my XTi makes a great backup. Its image quality is great and I benefit from the crop sensor because I like to use it for stitching. Since it has a crop sensor, I get the sharpest part of the lens with less vignetting. Its light, reliable, gives me excellent image quality, and its a cheap alternative to something like a 40D.</p>

<p>Choose a lens with a wide aperture. I like to use my Sigma 20mm f1.8 for taking star pictures, or my 50mm f1.8 for things that dont require a wide angle lens. You also need to shoot with your ISO all the way up as well. Honestly, I still prefer to use a tripod even with a fast lens and my ISO up.<br>

I would like to know what point and shoots you are referring to, because I have yet to see one perform half as well as a good SLR at night time.</p>

<p>For Canon, you can buy focusing screens that allow you to see the image as if it were cropped when you take the picture. Of course, you will still have to go back and crop later, but at least you could frame your shots properly when shooting. Im not familiar with Nikon enough to know if they make the same thing, but I would assume they do.</p>