Jump to content

jason_hall5

PhotoNet Pro
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,111

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by jason_hall5

    Help for a true beginner.

    in Beginner Questions

    Posted

    <p>When I decided that I wanted to start in photography (with no idea where it would go), I bought a basic SLR camera, (Canon Rebel 2000) and a book. I nearly read the book cover to cover and read the camera manual while playing with the switches and such before ever putting in the first roll of film.</p>

    <p>Had I had the internet like I do now, I would likely had never gotten the book. I agree with the above, that an older book based on film photography will be just as applicable. After I got my first Digital SLR I still used a set of books from the 70s to learn more and more and increase my understanding.</p>

    <p>Jason</p>

    Help for a true beginner.

    in Beginner Questions

    Help for a true beginner.

    in Beginner Questions

    Posted

    <p>I think she said DSLR...(Digital Single Lens Reflex). With a film camera we just call it SLR.</p>

    <p>A fast lens is simply a lens that has larger max aperture. Like f2.8 and or bigger....</p>

    <p>Still confused? Its time to get you a book and learn the basics of photography.</p>

    <p>Jason</p>

    What caused these thin light streaks?

    in Beginner Questions

    Posted

    <p>I can see the pattern repeated so it is certainly reflected off an element. Most likely a filter such as a UV filter. It may also be a little dirty. Here is a shot with the original Canon Digital Rebel (300D) and the 18-55 kit lens. The Moon was added. It was a 30 second exposure.</p>

    <p><img src="http://www.jphotoarts.com/Portfolio/Portfolio/IMG4278-copyTIFF/252140767_XcAVj-M-1.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="400" /></p>

    <p> </p>

    photo problems

    in Beginner Questions

    Posted

    <p>Shot at ISO 3200....certainly a noise issue. Noise will effect sharpness. I can the see the effect at ISO 200 albeit is not enough to casue an any issue at most any print size. ISO 400 is not at an issue when printed, however it is rather noticeable when viewed on screen at 100%. I don't like to use 800 or 1600 unless I have to. They are fine for casual shots or photos where you so not plan to print much more than 5x7, or maybe 8x10 in some cases. I use 1600 at wedding receptions and other such events with out issue. Most of these never get printed above 5x7, so the noise is not a problem.</p>

    <p>Haveing said all that....if you want the sharpest and cleanest images possible to print at poster size, then you need to shoot at ISO 100...maybe 200 if you must. 400 would be a streach, but I have not tried it at very big sizes. So good processing with noise reduction maybe acceptable. Depends on what you expect in the final product. </p>

    <p>Now the issue with the shot you posted....you shot at ISO 3200 with a shutter of 1/80 @ f5.6. So to shoot at ISO 100, you need a shutter of nearly 1/2 a second. So you will need a tripod if you are not able to use a larger aperture.</p>

    <p>Jason </p>

    Learning Manual Mode, Soooooo Disapointed :(

    in Beginner Questions

    Posted

    <p>Sorry, I clearly did not pay enough attention to the end of your post as to your method. I assume you are "exposeing to the right". This is not really a method of metering. That is a hunt and peck type of method to acheive a useable exposure, not the correct exposure.</p>

    <p>the idea with Exposeing to the right, is to increase exposure to the point of just before cliping the highlights. The idea of this is to pull as much info in the shadows as you can with out loseing anything in the highlights. However you still have to adjust final exposure in post processing to get what you want.</p>

    <p>To meter a scene would mean we use a light meter to measure light (incidental or reflective) and determine a correct exposure the first time. Try turning off the monitor on your camera and go out shooting and not looking at a single exposure until you get back home to see how you did.</p>

    <p>Jason </p>

    Learning Manual Mode, Soooooo Disapointed :(

    in Beginner Questions

    Posted

    <p>The yellow tint is due to white balance, not exposure or resolution (mega pixels). The monitor on her camera just may not have shown this, or the camera simply did a better job with Auto WB then yours.</p>

    <p>As for disappointing results with manual mode, my first question is, what method did you use to meter the scene? Was it a hand held meter or the one in your camera. IF the one in your camera, what mode was it set to? Does it have a spot meter on that model.</p>

    <p>Jason </p>

    Is there a Canon S/W for Canon Raw

    in Beginner Questions

    Posted

    <p>Canon DPP is pretty good as stated above, and best of all...its free. I rather use Lightroom wich does a really good job with the camera calibrations that is now has. Version 1 did not have that. I would think it should pretty much do the same as the current version of ACR.</p>

    <p>Having said that, for me, Canon's DPP gave the best conversion right out of the gate. Lightroom now gaves "close enough" results for me to justify using it.</p>

    <p>Jason </p>

    Tele Extender have no impact on depth of field

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    <p>This thread gives a new meaning to the term "circles of confusion" (CoC if you rather). Like JDM I thought I had a grip on this when I read the OP's post. However, after a couple of responses, I was rather confused myself. I feel sure however, Sarah and Scott have gotten me back on track. As it turns out, I was pretty much right on to start with.</p>

    <p>I am now going to take some pain reliever.....</p>

    <p>Jason</p>

    Hire someone to edit for you?

    in Beginner Questions

    Posted

    <p>I think you could find a market for it. I had exactly the same idea myself. Lex makes some great points, however I have heard of a number of photogs (how many I have no idea and I am sure they are a minority) who are switching back to film simply so they do not have to handle post processing and proof printing.</p>

    <p>Try some local photographers and give the idea a test run. Maybe offer to do the first 100 images for free as a test run for them to show you can do consistant work with their files. If you go bigger you have the issue chooseing a way for your client to quickly up load the files to you, and then of course send them back.</p>

    <p>I don't know about you, however I figured I would take thier RAW files and then deliver JPEG or TIFF if they preferred. That is assumeing they shot RAW and they trust you with them.</p>

    <p>I had this idea nearly two years ago, but just lack the funds (and mostly business sense) to get this rolling. My only options for high speed internet where I live is either satelite (expensive to install) or an air card (that is what I have, however I am limited to 5 gigs of data per month). My computer would also need to be upgraded to handle such a work load.</p>

    <p>Another idea, since photographers book months and often a year in advance, they should be expected to book in advance with you. I would charge extra for rush jobs also.</p>

    <p>But don't limit yourself to weddings(I am sure you wouldn't) becasue I could see event photogs would like such a service.</p>

    <p>I would love to hear how you come along with this, your post has gotten me thinking.</p>

    <p>Jason</p>

    Existential Crisis: I have torn the rotator cuff in my right sholulder

    in Casual Photo Conversations

    Posted

    <p>How about a monopod as other have said, and a remote shutter release mounted on the handle. Or better yet, you can hold the camera on the monopod/tripod and make adjustments with the left hand, and then hold the remote in the right hand. Maybe you could hold it and work the shutter button with out stressing that shoulder.</p>

    <p>Just an idea. You would need a wired remote as others use IR and require line of sight with a sensor on the front of the camera.</p>

    <p>Jason</p>

    540EZ question

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    <p>Yes, it is in the batt compartment. Hard to see, however it is between the two upper batteries on the same side as the display. You will have to remove the batteries to see it of course.</p>

    <p>Jason</p>

    Reflective vs incident readings: who can say it simply?

    in Beginner Questions

    Posted

    <p>Hello again Joseph, <a href="http://www.butkus.org/chinon/flashes_meters/luna-pro_sbc/luna-pro-3.htm">here is a link to a copy of the manual for your meter.</a></p>

    <p>Much of the info in the manual will repeat what has already been said. It will really get you on your way to getting the most from your meter. If you have a digital camera with manual controls, it would help you to go out and take some shots with the meter (paying no attention to the cameras meter) and get some practice with the methods outlined here and in the manual.</p>

    <p>Happy shooting, looks like you have a real nice set up.</p>

    <p>Jason</p>

    Reflective vs incident readings: who can say it simply?

    in Beginner Questions

    Posted

    <p>Hi Joseph,</p>

    <p>What direction did you point the dome of the incident meter? If you were standing on the beach and looking out at the ocean, you should have simply held the meter in front of you with the dome pointed back at you.</p>

    <p>As for the reflective meter, what type of meter did you have? Was it in the camera or also handheld? If was in the camera, what model of camera was it? If it was a modern model, what metering mode was it set to? If was handheld, was it an older selenium cell meter or a spot meter?</p>

    <p>Its really hard to say with the reflective meter. As pointed out above, several factors play into the reading of a reflective meter. Also with a modern camera, there are several modes that take reading from different parts of the scene and average them together. So we really need to know what type of meter you used and how you used it.</p>

    <p>Jason</p>

    Reflective vs incident readings: who can say it simply?

    in Beginner Questions

    Posted

    <p>On the other hand, the Incidental meter is the most accurate and is often my preferred method.</p>

    <p>Often older film camera do not have meters at all, so a hand held meter is the your only option. I use a Sekonic R-558, so it will do both incidental and reflective(1 degree spot)</p>

    <p>The incidental meter measures how much light is hitting your subject. When the subject is at arms length, simply place the meter at the subject with the dome faceing the direction of the lens(not at the light source). Take your reading and shoot. With this the exposure will be correct for the subject its self and every thing else will just fall were it may(shadows and highlights).</p>

    <p>If the subject is to far away to meter with the above method, then you simply hold the meter in the same light source as the subject and take your reading that way. As an example, you are shooting a building in the distance. It is lit by late day sun(nice warm light). Hold up your meter up so it is lit by the same light that is hitting your building. Take the reading and shoot. Again, the subject(the building) will be correctly exposed, and all else will fall into place.</p>

    <p>Reflective metering is a bit more tricky. This measures the amount of light being reflected back to your camera from the subject. However, different colors and surfaces reflect different amounts of light. your meter tries to bring you to 18% grey (more like 15%, but thats another topic). So if you meter someing very dark (like a dark colored shirt) then you will over expose as the meter is trying to lighten the color to 18% grey. If you meter on a field of snow, you will underexpose as the mete is trying to darken the white snow to 18% grey. With experence, photographers know to compensate exposure to account for such things when stuck with only a reflective meter. This is likely the reason for your problems between the two metering methods.</p>

    <p>A incidental meter does not take into account the reflectivness of your subject, so it is not fooled and so makes it more fool proof.</p>

    <p>There is a bit more to know about metering to beter control the final exposure, however the above info should get you started. </p>

    <p>I say learn your incidental meter, it can be your best friend.</p>

    <p>Jason</p>

    Canon G13?

    in Casual Photo Conversations

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>There are buildings that do not have a thirteenth floor.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>A large company I worked for in the South East did not have branch 13 for many years. At one point they decided to finaly assign the unlucky number to a newly opened branch. It turned out to be one of the biggest money makers.</p>

    <p>Jason</p>

     

×
×
  • Create New...