k_meade

<p>It sounds like it may just be the fact that it was underexposed that there seemed to be extra noise. Again, I thought being the 6D that it could stand a bit of underexposure. I looked at many of the other images that seemed correctly exposed, and I didn't notice any apparent noise like there was in the the darker ones.<br>

The photo that I posted on photo.net was, in fact, one of the ones that I was talking about; however, it doesn't look like it did before I uploaded it. Both in RAW, TIFF in photoshop, and jpeg in PS, it was much brighter and had apparent noise. As for calibrating my monitor, I tried to do it last night, but I'm not sure if I did it correctly. I actually did see the blue cast that someone was talking about, but that only appeared after uploading it. I shot in RAW, imported it in LR4, rendered/edited in PS CS4 as a TIFF, then I saved it as a JPEG so that I could upload it (for the record, besides the cropping in LR4, I did no processing on the one I uploaded so that you could see it as shot). The color of that picture changed completely after uploading it (his blue shirt looks more purple).<br>

As for how it was shot, I had my camera in manual mode. That particular picture was shot by my dad though because I was actually in it (I cropped it due to not know if my nephew wanted a bunch of pictures posted on the internet, so half a face was a compromise in my mind). My dad's 73 and used manual focus, so that's probably why it was definitely soft (I set the aperture to f8 instead of f4 because I wasn't sure how he would do with focusing).<br>

I guess I just need to practice more getting the correct exposure and metering (and learn how to use the histogram). Using manual mode, it seemed that the meter bar fluctuated a lot even without moving the camera that much left/right. If I'm doing portraits, would you recommend that I use spot metering? Thanks.</p>

<p>I should also add that I had a B+W polarizing filter on my 24-105mm f1.4L lens and have a Canon 6D. I should have removed the filter, but I had it on because it had been previously raining, and I wanted to reduce the glare from the greenery. I'm just wondering if the filter had something to do with it.</p>

<p>I am a beginner with digital photography and did my first outdoor photoshoot with my nephew a couple weeks ago, but I feel like I got some inconsistent results that I can't explain. It was an on-and-off cloudy day using only natural light. Many of the pictures not only have noticeable noise, but there is a weird discoloration in the edge of some of the shadow/highlight areas (purplish and gray in some places). I know that some of them are underexposed, but I didn't think that amount of underexposure would create so much noise.<br>

Even with ISO 800 and being a little underexposed, I am still surprised by the amount of noise. Do you think it's simply because of the ISO and exposure that it has this much noise, or is there something else at play that I'm not thinking about that would cause this. Not all the pictures had this, but many of them did, even when I was the one taking the picture. I tried to upload an example, but it looked completely different after uploading than it does on my PC.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks everyone for your suggestions. I went ahead and bought the 46" Photek Softlighter II; however, I'm still having decision paralysis for the umbrella swivel/light stand. I was going to get the Standard OCF Jump Starter Kit recommended by the strobist website: LumoPro LP606 8ft. Air Cushioned Light Stand, LumoPro LP679 Umbrella Swivel w/ Flash Shoe Adapter, and Hot shoe Universal Translator kit w/16ft. Mini-mini cable (decided against the compact light stand). This starter kit is about $100 and comes with a Westcott 43" Collapsible Umbrella with Removable Cover as part of the package too.<br /> <br />My concern with this is the LumoPro LP679 umbrella swivel. In the description it states, "SB-900 flash users should look at the LP633". I don't know anything about the SB-900 and have a Canon 600EX-RT, but I want to make sure these combinations will be sturdy enough to hold my flash and my softlighter. There seems to be a lot of possible combinations with this set up that I can get, but I don't want to buy something that won't hold my equipment well. I'm open to other brands/combination for a set-up too. Thanks.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for your responses so far. As far as using it at wide angle, I definitely will be using it on the wide angle because I'll be doing picture of waterfalls. In the Columbia River Gorge, many of the waterfalls are in places where you have to get right up to them to get a picture of the entire falls, so a ND filter would not work for this purpose since it's not just to increase exposure time but for glare as well (I'm less worried about skies, especially for wide angle). I think that $180 would be way too much for me to spend. Does either lightroom or Photoshop have the ability to reduce any vignetting that may occur?</p>

<p>I have a Canon EOS 6D and shall be taking pictures of landscapes/waterfalls, so I would like to get a polarizing filter for my Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L and EF24-105mm f4L lenses (luckily they both take 77mm filters). I read about possible vignetting on the wide angle lens and that I probably should get a slim-line polarizer, especially since I'll be using it on the 17-40mm lens a lot.<br>

<br /> I was looking at a few B+W filters but was confused by the title vs. description of the products:<br /> 1. "B+W 77mm Slim-Line Circular Polarizer" ($80) specifically says it's a slim-line, but it doesn't say it has a multi-resistant coating.<br /> 2. "B+W 77mm Circular Polarizer with Multi-Resistant Coating" ($119) says that it has MRC, but the name "slim-line" is not in the product title and doesn't look as thin as the one described above. However, the product description on amazon.com states "New thinner Pro mount. No vignetting" which confused me.<br /> 3. "B+W 77mm Kaesemann Circular Polarizer with Multi-Resistant Coating" ($116) although is comparable in price to the $119 one and has the Käsemann foil, I'm assuming that this wouldn't work for my wide angle lens since it neither is described as slim-line nor has it in the description.<br /> <br />My question is does it specifically have to state slim-line in the title, or is the fact that it's described as "new thinner Pro mount. No vignetting" good enough? By the way, I don't need to buy B+W, I just read some good reviews about their filters. I can go with another less expensive brand, but I just don't want to put a really cheap filter on my good lenses. I have never used any filters before and any additional suggestions would be appreciated.</p>

<p>I am brand-new to <em>digital</em> photography (SLR film camera previously), and I now have a Canon EOS 6D with a 600EX-RT Speedlite. I want to start using off-camera flash and have been reading the strobist blog. I think I now have an okay handle on the basic equipment that I'll need to get started, but I have a few specific questions as well as am having difficulty narrowing down which modifier I want and would like some input.</p>

<p>The strobist website recommends the <em>Compact OCF Jump Starter Kit</em> ($110) from Midwest Photoexchange which includes: Westcott 43" Collapsible Umbrella with Removable Cover, LumoPro LP605 7ft. Compact Light Stand, LumoPro LP633 Umbrella Swivel w/ Flash Shoe Adapter, and Hot shoe Universal Translator kit w/16ft. Mini-mini cable.</p>

<p>I was also interested in and read good things about the Photek Softlighter II umbrella, 60" ($95) and 46" ($75). Here are my main questions:<br>

1. Is the Photek Softlighter II that much superior to the Westcott umbrella or do they perform the exact same function and I shouldn't waste my money on the Photek Softlighter?<br>

2. What are the considerations when choosing the size of the umbrella, between the 60" and 46" for example? Will the 60" light a larger group of people when doing portraits or does it just provide softer light?<br>

3. If I did go with the 60" Photek Softlighter II, would my 600EX flash be enough for that large of umbrella? Also, would the LumoPro 7ft light stand be able to hold a larger umbrella such as the 60"?</p>

<p>I have never done off-camera flash before and have been trying to learn about it for the last 2 months before I make a decision, so any other considerations I'm not thinking of would be appreciated.</p>

 

<p>The one listed on amazon.com is definitely the RT version, and I think I read somewhere that the non-RT version isn't sold in the U.S. I could not find the non-RT 600ex on the amazon.com website.</p>

<p>Thanks, I went ahead and already put in a request to cancel the 580ex, so I hope they're able to cancel it still...and I hope I can return it if they sent it already. I don't know how I missed this on the amazon.com website, but it clearly says on the 580ex page that there is a newer model and provides the link to that one. What's weird is that the 600ex is a $1 cheaper now at $569, so I am still confused why an older model is selling at the same/higher price there (that's the reason I thought I was missing something). B&H has the 580ex for $500 though and $569 for the 600ex.<br>

<br />There is just a lot to consider with going digital, and I didn't have an advanced set-up with my film SLR as it was. My brain is getting overloaded with information.</p>

<p>I'm going digital for the first time since always shooting film, and I've been doing some research for a few months on what equipment I wanted. I have no idea how I missed this, but I just found out that there is a newer flash than the 580ex from Canon, the 600ex-rt. I just ordered the 580ex II along with a Canon EOS 6D, and they are getting ready to be shipped.<br>

<br />Amazon has both flashes available for the same price of $570 right now, so did I make a huge mistake by ordering the older 580ex II since the newer 600ex-rt is selling for the same price? Am I missing something or are there disadvantages to the 600ex-rt that the 580ex doesn't have? Honestly, I feel like such an idiot for missing this since I thought I had done enough research; obviously I hadn't.</p>

<p>I have had Photoshop CS4 for several years, but I thought I read somewhere that the RAW files from the newer cameras may not work in it (I may have misunderstood the post). I could probably afford the $120 for Lightroom 4, but I can't afford or justify upgrading to Photoshop CS6, which I think is the most recent version at around $540.<br>

<br />Stupid question: Does Lightroom do something different that Photoshop CSx cannot do? What I mean is that do people normally have both or just one or the other. I've been shooting film my entire life and never worked with digital, and I have only used my Photoshop CS4 to repair old family pictures that I've scanned.</p>

<p>Thank you, Jos and David, for your quick responses. I'm glad to get feedback from people who have owned both. I went ahead and ordered my Canon EOS 6D with the 24-105mm lens a few minutes ago and feel good about this decision. Even though it's going to tighten my budget for the other things I need to go digital (which is quite an investment), I'd rather start with a good lens especially since getting the bundle saves me $400-$500 on that lens. Now I need to research what computer programs I need for processing RAW files before the camera arrives. Thanks again.</p>

<p>I'm going from a 35mm film SLR to DSLR (Canon EOS 6D), and I am unsure if I should buy just the camera body for $2,000 or the camera body with the EF24-105mm f4L IS USM Kit lens for $2,700. I currently have 2 lenses: EF 50mm f/1.4 prime and EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS zoom (both Canon lenses). I also know for sure that I am going to purchase a Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L lens.<br>

<br />My question is should I buy the 6D with the 24-105mm lens or do you think that my 28-135mm is "good enough" and the 24-105mm would be a waste?. The 24-105mm seems to cost around $1,100 by itself, so I'd be getting it for basically $700 (a $400 discount) with the camera. I've never been happy with the pictures from the 28-135mm lens on my film camera, but to be honest, I'm not sure if it's just my lack of ability or the lens. Sharpness/quality is important going forward because I plan on getting to the point where I can sell my images. I would be using it for photographs of people and probably a walk around lens (or any nature picture that my wide angle can quite catch).<br>

I know one answer might be to get the 6D and use it with the 28-135mm to see if I can get my images to improve and buy the 24-105mm later; however, since I have a limited amount of money, I think I'd rather save the $400 now if I need the better lens since it's a package deal with the 6D. Thanks.</p>

<p>Thanks, Sheldon. I live right outside the Columbia River Gorge in Portland and have been to most of the waterfalls on both the Oregon and Washington sides, but I only had a point-and-shoot with me (w/o tripod) on all my visits. I now want to actually seriously photograph them with my SLR instead of just snap shots, and many of them require you to get pretty close to where you need wide angle to get good composition.<br>

Just one question about the Canon 17-40mm that you recommended (and I know I'll probably sound like an idiot asking this). On amazon.com there are 2 listings for that lens with similar descriptions but slightly different pricing. Is the only difference that they ship from different places (1st from amazon, 2nd from TheImagingWorld)?:<br>

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras ($699)<br>

Canon 17-40mm f/4L EF Ultra Wide Angle ($739)</p>

<p>I'm looking for advice on a wide angle zoom lens that would be good for waterfall and landscape photographs. Currently I have a Canon Rebel T2 film camera, but there's a good chance that I shall be going digital in the near future with a full-frame Canon D6. I only have 2 lenses right now: Canon EF 50mm 1.4 USM prime and Canon EF 28-135mm 3.5-5.6 IS USM zoom.<br>

<br />I don't think that the 28-135mm zoom lens that I currently have is the quality that I want as well as I might need something a bit wider for some of the waterfalls. I am prepared to spend anywhere from $500 to $750, but I just want to make sure that it's a good (not mediocre) lens. I do want to stick with Canon lenses.</p>