alex_dannenbaum
-
Posts
95 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by alex_dannenbaum
-
-
<p>Occassionally, usually when shooting a static subject location, like a nest or feeding site. Then it comes in real handy. I can set up my equipment faiirly close to my anticipated subject, then move away and shoot with a remote trigger. </p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>My wife has about 50 of those throwaway cameras (27 shots/roll) she has used for taking pictures over the last 10 years or so at every family event. I would like to find the cheaper alternatives for printing the photos (4x6). Quality is important, but not the primary deciding factor. (Better to have some ok photos than none at all). <br>
After reviewing the forums it looks like Costco and Walgreens are the most highly recommended retail store vendors. Are there others I should consider. What about a mail out service? </p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>Ok, I am impressed with all the available online tools for calculating DOF. Anyone know if there are any iPhone or Droid apps that are available that do the same thing? </p>
-
<p>Well, I decided that 2 bodies are better than one. I went ahead and purchased a used 20D cheap. I set the Custom Function to turn on the ISO expansion, so I am ready to go. <br>
I also splurged and got a EF 70-200 2.8 IS L II. I will use this on my 50D. I used this lens over Thanksgiving for some indoor family shots and was really really pleased with the results. It also worked really well at a nighttime football game. I may not have needed the IS, (since I am shooting at 1/200th sec or above for sports and could have saved $700 and a good bit of weight, but I take so many low light shots normally that I think the IS will come in handy at other times. I just hope I can mange lugging around this beast on the court for a couple of hours. <br>
I also sprang for a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. I assumed I needed a lens at least this fast, and wide for those close in shots and was hoping to save some $$$ over the Canon alternative zoom. I am beginning to have second thoughts that this lens is a bit soft and has some CA. Perhaps I am just spoiled on Canon lenses. As an alternative I am considering an EF 50mm f/1.8 II. This is even faster and probably sharper, but doesn't provide me with any flexiblity. The only way I will know for sure is run some tests and try it on the court and check my results. I figure I will give the Tamron a try and if most of my shots are at or near 50mm then the Canon 50mm will probably make good sense. <br>
This will be my first venture with 2 bodies and I am looking forward to getting some great shots. I will need to experiment with on court shooting locations, to see what works best where. Season starts in a week. </p>
-
<p>Thanks also, William. Nicely done. </p>
-
<p>I am looking to purchase a battery grip for Canon 20D body. This is for a second body that will get limited use, but must obviously work. I don't want to spend a lot of money if I can get away with it. I was looking on eBay at the BG-E2N grips for sale. <br>
Most of these are made in China and really cheap knockoffs. They might be perfect for my needs, but I don't want to throw my money away. Has anyone had experience with purchasing this or similar grip from a Chinese seller? Are there any brands I should consider or avoid?</p>
-
<p>I just received my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II from B&H. No date code, anywhere. Perhaps there is a new date code system imbedded in the new serial number as mentioned earlier. However there is nothing that I can see in either the 10 digit serial number nor on the longer 26 digit serial number (on the box and receipt) that resembes the old date code format.</p>
<p>Lets start the rumor that Canon has adopted a new secret date code structure. They are using military supercomputers to bury the date code in a specially encrypted format based on Pi in the 26 digit serial number. (That would keep some geeks entertained for a while).</p>
<p>Personally, I like the date code. True, alone it is a fairly useless piece of information, but combined with other data, it helps to paint a picture of the history of the lens. Besides it was alway fun to impress some Canon newcomer with your secret translation abilities.</p>
-
<p>While shooting kiteboarders in a local bay, I am usually about waist deep in water. I once tried putting an old monopod wrapped in several layers of plastic wrap in the salt water to support the camera. (I thought the plastic would protect it from the water. The monopod worked fine for the shoot, but when I removed the plastic wrap, the monopod was very wet. I tried drying every element of the monopod, but within 24 hours it froze up and became useless. Assuming you are using an aluminum based tripod, it would likely suffer a similar fate. <br>
As for the camera, I shoot without waterproofing, but use a raincover. This protects against errant splashes, but I bear no illusion that if I were to lose my balance and submerge the camera, even for a moment, it would be lost forever. <br>
Best of luck. </p>
-
<p>I want to thank all of you for your comments. You have some great suggetions and I use this info in making my final selection. It is clear my current lens package requires a faster lens to shoot basketball. The only reason I was considering the IS version of the 70-200 f/2.8 was that it provided me with some versatility when shooting something other than sports. <br>
One more question, I have a 20D whose shutter froze a year ago. I was thinking about reparing it for around $300 and using it as a second body. (This would be the cheapest alternative) Any reason why I should consider using another body? </p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>Well, I would say my budget is in the neigborhood of $2K-$2200. I saw that B&H had a instant rebate for the 70-200 which came to $2069. I could squeeze in a used 50 1.8, if necessary. Of course I would love to save the money if there was a cheaper alternative. </p>
-
<p>I have been shooting HS Football games this season, and have been asked to shoot basketball in a couple of weeks. My current equipment is a Canon 50D, with a 100-400mm f3.5-5.6L lens and a 10-22mm 3.5-4.5 and a 24-105 f/4 L. From what I have read all these lenses are too slow for basketball; I should be shooting a 2.8 or faster. <br>
How should I best restructure my lens/body collection to get good basketball shots? Would I be better off purchasing a 70-200 f/2.8 or purchasing a 50mm f/1.8 or possibly a f/1.4 and staying close to the action? I would consider getting both (long & prime) lenses, but then, I assume I would need another camera body on top of that and now $$$ really becomes an issue. (I do own an old 20D, in need of a shutter replacement...perhaps I should get it fixed and then carry both.) <br>
I would like to keep the transistion as simple as possible. If I was shooting with one body, what lens would serve me best? Are there other lenses I should be considering? Are carrying two bodies and lenses necessary for basketball? </p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>I occassionally shoot sports, but until now have never had the occassion of shooting a nighttime football game under lights before. Due to my inexperience and possibly limitations of my equipment, my first attempt shots came out awfullly dark. I am looking for some advice on how to improve the outcome of these nitetime football shootings.<br>
I am using a Canon 50D with a EF100-400mm f4.5-5.6 lens. (I know what you may be thinking...you can't shoot nightime football with such a slow lens, you need at least a f2.8...right?). Well there is more...<br>
The photos I am shooting are for a website that displays small photos. Therefore, pixel density and noise are not a significant issue. I had shot the game with an ISO of 1600 and did not notice any noise. I have been told I can shoot in the lowest quality setting and with the higest ISO available (3200 or even 12800 (H2 ISO expansion). I was also advised to use Manual Mode with a setting of no less than 1/160 sec. and my widest apeture with the highest ISO available. <br>
Should this be adequate, or do you reccomend additional factors to consider? </p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>I remember reading or probably was told that you should turn off the IS function when shooting on a tripod. Since I generally keep the IS turned on on both of my two IS lenses (EF 24-105mm f/4L and 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L) as a default, I suspect more than once I have left it on while on a tripod. So far, I haven't noticed any problems. What will happen if you leave on the IS while shooting on a tripod? Will it just effect the images, or will any harm come to the Image Stabilization in the lens?<br>
Does this same general guideline apply to the use of a monopd?</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>I own a Canon 50D. I am trying to set custom settings for nightime football. (Photos will be displayed on internet thumbnails, so high ISO levels should not be not a problem). I want to set my camera to use the C1/C2 settings to the following: M mode; f4.5; 1/160 sec. ISO H2 (12800). <br>
How do I create this custom setting? When I try and set it up on the C1/C2 settings, the software defaults to P mode and won't let me switch to M. What is going on here? I assume it is possible to customize and store both my general camera settings as well as my Custom Funtions under the C1/C2, but maybe I have that wrong. What is the proper way to save the settings so I am one click away from my desired setting package?</p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>I would agree with Robert. A fisheye is a great tool, but with very specialized use. (Much like a macro lens). I would suggest building your collection from the ground up and collecting the basic group of lenses first, which you appear to have except for a super wide angle. The Super Wide Angle EF-S 10-22mm should be very useful for many of your interior and broad landscape type shots. Keep in mind that this lens is not extremely fast and for interior use, would require a flash most of the time. </p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>What camera are you using and what is your budget?</p>
-
<p>I have had good luck with the Vivitar RC 200 you referenced above. Works for about 50 yds. For portraits, set the camera for a delayed shutter release then fire the remote and quickly pocket it. </p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>Your choice of tools, should reflect the type of photos you take. I shoot a little bit of everything, so I am inclined to share your approach and try and keep things simple. In contrast, someone who repeatedly takes the same type of shot, (ie. consistently lit portraits, extended exposures for waterfalls in forest settings , etc.) might find it in their interest to adopt a preset or two and avoid making repeated similar post processing adjustments (and get it right the first time). Regardless of whatever approach you adopt, I would assume it is a good idea to be familiar with most if not all the features of your equipment, so you can recognize opportunities and fine-tune your tools to meet your individual needs. </p>
-
<p>Here is some inspiration on the power of post processing:<br>
Check out the following photo with such deep rich colors, then scroll down a bit and look at the original shot in RAW. Granted this was heavily worked, but it gives you an idea of the power of tools like Photoshop and how a flat and gray shot can be transformed if you know what you are doing. </p>
-
<p>I agree with everything that was said before. Words of wisdom...<br>
I think you made the right move in pairing down your SLR body and lenses to a high end P&S. I don't know for a fact, but I have been told, that SLRs, and their lenses do not travel well by bicycle. The jiggling and joseling take their toll on the internal workings of these delicate instruments. If you are looking for an alternative to your current model, I would suggest checking out the Canon G series. This is a great little system that works well on the road. I have a good friend who is a professional photographer for over 30 years. He used to carry an SLR on trips all over the world. Now he travels with a G9. His photographic work with this little gem rivals his previous portfolio entries made on expensive SLR packages. <br>
You are definitely on the right path by critically analyzing your own work. When it comes to the greyish photos, these can often be improved with more colorful subjects, working with good lighting and good use of post processing tools. <br>
Additionally, when you find a photo you like, identify the photographer, and check out their other work. Occassionally, you can learn from their website about their photographic process; and once an a while, you can establish a coorespondance to gain some inside information. <br>
I would have to agree with minimizing your time with Photoshop until you feel you have mastered a simpler level of processing. I don't know if all would agree, but Photoshop is so richly layered and complex, that it is easy for a novice photographer to lose sight of the forest for the trees. I have just switched to Lightroom3, and like it quite a bit. It has the added advantage of effectively managing large number of photos. (Which if you are practicing a lot, you will most certainly have an extensive collection in several years). If you are a Mac user you might want to consider Apeture. <br>
Don't be too discouraged by less than great photos. As I am sure you have experienced, you have to take several hundred shots, to come up with a handful or really good ones. As you practice, you will learn techniques, that will improve that ratio. <br>
One thing that has helped me, is to enter contests, like DP Challenge. You probably won't score in the top 10 out of the gate, but you gain a lot of experience by drawing upon your internal competitive spirit, and shooting to meet a specific objective. (Its a little like a homework assignment in photo school. (but hopefully more fun than classwork). Additionally, you will learn how others have approached the same challenge and succeeded gracefully. </p>
-
<p>I no nothing about this market, but I would assume that if you start at the earliest opportunity, (expectant mothers) and focus there, they will shortly have newborns that grow into young children, and you have a long-term client. If you can forge a relationship early on, you can become the "family photographer". How to reach the expectant mother? Does a "baby shower gift certificate" make any sense? Perhaps baby stores would pick them up.<br>
Good luck. </p>
-
<p>I generally shoot with Canon's WB settings for daylight, shade, etc. I occassionaly rely on AWB, but not often. I do not use a custom settings, though I did play with them a long time ago, when I first got the camera. I shoot in several picture styles depending on my mood at the time. Most often I use Standard, but will also use Landscape, Portrait, Neutral and Faithful. (I haven't quite figured out which one I should be shooting in, but I try and match them to situation (Landscape, & Portrait), and occassionally experiment. I have not set or used the custom styles. (Is there a correct Style, or just what works for you?) <br>
I generally shoot in RAW. When shooting bursts, I will switch over to Jpeg. I have never used DPP. My primary tools for post-processing have been Picasa3.6 and Photoshop CS3. However, about a month ago I upgraded to Lightroom3, and CS5, and am beginning to learn and incorporate them into my post processing protocol. <br>
My monitor and printer have both been calibrated (though I am sure I don't do it frequently enough - maybe every 6 months). I use Spyder 3Pro to do the monitor calibration. I never shot a color checker card. I am using a Canon Pro9000 printer, which I calibrated as per the manual instructions when I first got it about a year ago. It took some time, and practice, but my prints now come fairly close to what I see on my screen. <br>
I believe I see this subtle color cast, starting with the camera LCD on monitor display post processing and printing. You might think I am crazy that I can see much of anything on a 3" LCD, but what I do see looks similar enough to all the following stages. <br>
Mars, I like what you have to say, it reinforces my suspicions and at least you don't think I'm completely crazy. What I am taking from this discussion, is I should get back to basics, and recheck each step of the color processing process and later experiment with customizing profiles to make minor adjustments. </p>
-
<p>I have owned two DSLR Canon bodies 20D and 50D. Both seem to have the same oddities in terms of color hue/tint of a reddish nature. It seems more prevalent in some pictures more than others, but I think it is pretty much always there. Coincidently, I look at a lot of pictures, many of which are shot with Nikon DSLRs. To me, these seem to have a goldish/yellow hue or tint to them. I believe I can often tell what kind of camera a photo was shot with, just by looking at the photo.<br>
Do other people notice the same thing? Would camera calibration help to give me a more balanced/natural look to my colors? If so, how does one begin this process?<br>
Alternatively, I just purchased Lightroom3 and I see that one can adjust for basic camera calibration presets for post processing. I haven't tried this yet. Is this an effective approach; or is it something that as a Canon user, I should just get used to? </p>
<p> </p>
-
<p>I have owned both lenses in the past. If I had to opt for one, I would choose the 70-200 f/4L. It is a wonderful lens and fairly versatile. You could use it for both portraits and sports. However, there is a downside. It is really an outdoor lens. It does not perform well in low light situations. Indoors, for example, the AF will not always work, and a lot of your shots will either be underexposed or blurred. If the sports you are referring to is basketball, I think you may be disappointed. <br>
However, if you would like this lens for outdoor daytime sports and street portraits, it will serve you well. I would recommend getting a decent used monopod. Wearing a heavy lens like this around your neck for 2 - 3 hours at a stretch can be brutal and the monopod is a great resting tool. Also, a monopod will compensate for the lack of IS. Finally, this will raise your street cred, as you will really look like a professional sports photographer. <br>
The 28-135 is a good all purpose walk around lens. If I could only had one lens from all those mentioned, the 28-135 would probably be best. You could use it in a wide variety of situations. It will deliver consistently good shots. If you spend the day running around taking all kinds of shots, and only carrying one lens, this will do the trick. <br>
Don't be too oversold on the L glass myth. Yes L lenses are better lenses than their non-L lens counterparts, but a large part of that is the build quality, (quick AF, weatherproofing, durability, etc.) and not exclusively the "glass", associated image quality. The smart move is to select the lens you most need. <br>
These are both great lenses, you can't go wrong with either. The good news is that they keep their value. If you purchase on the used market (I shop through Craigslist), and you care for the lens, you can resell it later often for the original price you paid. </p>
<p> </p>
How to avoid light flare while shooting at night?
in Beginner Questions
Posted
<p>One minor way to reduce the "distractability" of the lights is shoot with a wider apeture. This will reduce the star-like effect in the image and change it to a glowing ball. By keeping the shutter speed and ISO (unless you can lower it) about the same, and shooting with a ND (neutral density) filter or shooting at a slightly later time when there is less ambient light you can keep the overall exposure the same and achieve a similar effect without the 'light stars". This might help a bit. <br>
Try experimenting with varying your apeture, ISO and filters to alter the effect. Your best option, however, when shooting this kind of shot is to antipate the effect of street lights and other lighting distractions and a select darker and more isolated location. </p>
<p>An ideal setting for this type of shot, would be to shoot from a dark hillside within a urban park that has a winding road below and in front of you with few or no streetlights. Also, you will want a nice view of the skyline in the background. <br>
You only need one car to get a good effect. (In my experience red tail lights work better than white headlights for trails.) It almost doesn't matter where the sun is setting, since you will be shooting after it goes down, and besides your main subject is the car trails, the roadway and the distant skyline. The glowing clouds are nice addition, but not necessary. </p>