Using your Camera (DSLR)

[reefnjunkie]

I saw the recent thread Skull put up regarding doing a workshop to help with the "how to use my camera to its ability" type of meeting which is an awesome idea-props for that.

 

Not to divert people away from our little disfunctional forum but many people here are on other forums as well so I thought I would link this up.

 

Its proven to be very helpful

 

http://www.reef2reef.com/forums/photography-forum/

 

If nothing else it could provide for some good reading to understand certain terms that are discussed at later times, like depth of field, f stop, etc.

[Electrokate]

I think some people are confused about the need for a macro lens as well. They describe their goal and it's a thing they could do with a 50mm standard lens but I lack the lingo to describe effectively how I deal with that. They may however need one on one help, not the standard meeting format. So truly a workshop. Getting close to the glass is not necessarily at least in my mind essential when the goal is to control depth of field, getting close to the glass just puts a reflection of the lens and fingers on the glass for me. I could use help on metering high watt halides and LED's on a Canon DSLR sensor, either get too much contrast or not enough and the meter wants me to take pics that are overexposed.

 

Don't suppose any of you have a monitor calibration setup you want to rent out in exchange for a couple frags?

[BrianB]

Kate. Monitor calibration is a very in depth time consuming thing to do. And if you truly want great results. Well you are looking into a professional isf certified tech. But you can do a "decent" enough job with a spider4 pro. Will run around $170 to buy. There also isn't a isf tech in Oregon that I would trust. But I am a AV junkie as well as fish geek.

[Reefer503]

I have used different types of monitor calibrators and from my experience, they are very time consuming and have to be re-calibrated every few months. You have to calibrate the monitor to the printer...so, unless you have professional gear, it can be nearly impossible to accomplish. I was using a $2600 monitor (http://www.eizo.com/global/products/coloredge/cg241w/index.html#tab01) and a $5000 printer. The monitor has built-in hardware and the printer was loaded with the color profile to create a color sync.

 

Honestly, if you're not printing the artwork, there is no real need for color calibration as everyone that looks at your artwork will be seeing it differently as their monitor and settings will be different than yours. The calibration only works for you to 'accurately' see what something will look like prior to printing.

[Electrokate]

well I looked at some of my earlier photos and they are very washed out, then we switched monitors. I hate the new one, depending on how I sit in the chair the pic looks totally different. I know it's a time consuming frustrating thing to do but I just have to know what my baseline is-are the washed out images "right" or the latest versions? The little camera shop next block up from World of Wet Pets, I think it is Advanced, they rent a calibration thing out too. I don't print, if I ever need to do that I will go to Digicraft.

[pledosophy]

IME with monitor calibration, it takes me about 10 minutes, I do so every Monday at home. It is not hard at all. At work we have 7 monitors I have to calibrate every so often. The software now makes it very easy IMO. Best tip I have for it is a rubberband around the monitor.

 

Calibrating to a professional printer can be done with software, you can even adjust to the paper you are using. The printer I use was fairly expensive, not something most have in there home, but if your printing at Cosco or Ritz you can do the same.

 

You do not need a macro lens to take pictures of corals. A macro lens can give you some cool affects specifically related to the depth of field as the magnification hits the sensor, but if you are not looking for sure close ups with no DoF you can use just about any lens on a descent camera and take a picture.

 

IME for color with Hailides of LED's it is not to tough to custom white balance to your tank, I use a tubberware lid. If your stuck using an in camera meter and are having exposure problems, maybe look for a neutral gray piece of plastic to meter the exposure, then set it to manual and fire away. It will change in different areas of your tank, just like the PAR does An external meter is really the way to go for exposure readings, but it is costly for an under water one if your just shooting your tank. A piece of grey plastic is a lot cheaper.

 

JMO

[pledosophy]

IME with monitor calibration, it takes me about 10 minutes, I do so every Monday at home. It is not hard at all. At work we have 7 monitors I have to calibrate every so often. The software now makes it very easy IMO. Best tip I have for it is a rubberband around the monitor.

 

Calibrating to a professional printer can be done with software, you can even adjust to the paper you are using. The printer I use was fairly expensive, not something most have in there home, but if your printing at Cosco or Ritz you can do the same. I never print stuff at home, so I am useless for advice there.

 

You do not need a macro lens to take pictures of corals. A macro lens can give you some cool affects specifically related to the depth of field as the magnification hits the sensor, but if you are not looking for sure close ups with no DoF you can use just about any lens on a descent camera and take a picture.

 

IME for color with Hailides of LED's it is not to tough to custom white balance to your tank, I use a tubberware lid. If your stuck using an in camera meter and are having exposure problems, maybe look for a neutral gray piece of plastic to meter the exposure, then set it to manual and fire away. It will change in different areas of your tank, just like the PAR does An external meter is really the way to go for exposure readings, but it is costly for an under water one if your just shooting your tank. A piece of grey plastic is a lot cheaper.

 

JMO

[Electrokate]

Thanks for the tips on white balance, will have to work on that. I get used to the settings for my own tanks and any I shoot frequently but then at other peoples' houses I am not getting it.

 

What monitor calibration are you using that you like? I don't need pro results but I do know as we have 4 or 5 computers running at any given time around here that photos look grey on some screens and too vivid on others. I don't want to digitally archive a bunch of badly washed out pics and delete the originals by mistake. I am no pro shooter, never print, I just put my pics up mostly on facebook.

 

I took 2 years of photography from excellent teachers in college (Diane Kornberg and Terry Toedtemeier) but was not really ready to learn at that age. Now I can get on Wikipedia when I feel dumb about something like never really learning how to use filters or comprehend ISO. Wikipedia stinks for some topics but if you like me are intimidated by words like bokeh, bracketing, etc you get on there and read til it sinks in. For me it took more than a few readings, am not a technical person.

 

Another friend last night was asking me about macro lenses, I don't use one unless shooting a very small object like a bee. A 4" coral or flower to get the entire subject in focus I need to play with a standard lens and set the aperture multiple ways, shoot a bunch of tries, and I can usually get the back and foreground to go away with a standard lens. Not pro shooting results but good enough for facebook. It's not like I get paid (:.

[Electrokate]

Thanks for the tips on white balance, will have to work on that. I get used to the settings for my own tanks and any I shoot frequently but then at other peoples' houses I am not getting it.

 

What monitor calibration are you using that you like? I don't need pro results but I do know as we have 4 or 5 computers running at any given time around here that photos look grey on some screens and too vivid on others. I don't want to digitally archive a bunch of badly washed out pics and delete the originals by mistake. I am no pro shooter, never print, I just put my pics up mostly on facebook.

 

I took 2 years of photography from excellent teachers in college (Diane Kornberg and Terry Toedtemeier) but was not really ready to learn at that age. Now I can get on Wikipedia when I feel dumb about something like never really learning how to use filters or comprehend ISO. Wikipedia stinks for some topics but if you like me are intimidated by words like bokeh, bracketing, etc you get on there and read til it sinks in. For me it took more than a few readings, am not a technical person.

 

Another friend last night was asking me about macro lenses, I don't use one unless shooting a very small object like a bee. A 4" coral or flower to get the entire subject in focus I need to play with a standard lens and set the aperture multiple ways, shoot a bunch of tries, and I can usually get the back and foreground to go away with a standard lens. Not pro shooting results but good enough for facebook. It's not like I get paid (:.

[Reefer503]

I'm guessing we're talking about different calibration techniques and or hardware/software... the one I used to use for print required me to click on and set a color palette of 140 or so little swatches each time I calibrated. That is what took forever, as I had to click and wait for the software to recognize the color, then move onto the next. Granted, that was a few years ago and the new stuff is probably easier and quicker.

 

On another note, if you're not using some kind of photo editing software already, I would recommend checking out Adobe Lightroom. Free trial here: https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/tdrc/index.cfm?product=photoshop_lightroom

 

It allows you to change a lot of the parameters after taking the photo, and if your camer can take Raw files, I would suggest using those, as they have much more data to work with than the jpegs. Of course, you will probably want to try this after you get your monitor calibration figured out

[Electrokate]

was shooting raw, but a guy at advanced said it's noisier at high ISO so low light I should do the jpgs, then I never turned raw back on for the garden pics. Oops (:

 

I know I can't use a color comparison technique with the naked eye since I see 2 different colors with each eye due to a surgery, and after school spent a year doing custom enlargements and then color correcting proofs at a pro printer. I got fatigued really fast by the colors and had trouble that other staff did not experience, it was like I could no longer see white as white. Part of it is trying to color correct 300 wedding shots in 20 minutes, each photographer's choice of film and level of skill varied greatly. Priority was the wedding dress had to be white but sometimes that made the bride's face green or orange... a couple of the photographers used dollar store film, expired Konica I think, it was awful. The calibration things I was interested in trying are devices that look at the screen for you instead. 140 little swatches... ugh. Sounds like my old job in terms of annoying.

 

Thanks for the tip on lightroom, really frustrated with gimp today.

 

Here are a few examples of photos... first 2 shot with a 50mm lens, not a macro. Manual focus. 3rd was with 100mm Canon macro USM. The 3rd works but in general I would like more depth of field and in general a lens that long probably needs to be on a tripod and have more light available than my tank has, plus that was sheer luck. Waste of time shooting pictures and hoping for good luck. I'd rather make an educated guess and then bracket.

 

I have been told by a pro that I absolutely must try the Canon 65mm macro USM. He also suggests buying a 5DmkII which unless he's buying it for me is not going to happen no matter how cheap they are these days now that the new one is out (: He's a perfectionist... so if anyone really needs a Canon macro this is something to look at.

 

"][/url]

 

"][/url]

 

"][/url]

[pledosophy]

I use the eye one software for calibration. I set it up, go make coffee, come back and it's done. I like it. I got mine used when the new version came out, so it was a hundred bucks cheaper. Does everything I need it to. At work we use something different, but the name escapes me at the moment. We have tried quite a few things there.

 

I spent a few years learning photography as well, then had to go back for a few more when the world turned digital. Still enjoy it. Have been shooting professionally for about 15 years.

 

IME RAW files do not create more noise then Jpegs. Raw conversion software will allow you to adjust for the noise as well to compensate. You just have to actually do it, not shoot in RAW then auto convert to Jpegs.

 

There is a funny thing about photographers and cameras now days, everyone thinks you need a new nice camera. People who play with photography are often shocked by the cameras we use for some of our studio work. It's odd because at one point not to long ago an 8 MP camera was incredible, but now that is your cell phone, just without the other bells and whistles in the body that make those 8MP work. I have a photographer I work with who uses a Canon Xt (the first rebel upgrade from 03 or so). She uses it everyday, all day. She has sold well over 2 million in work from that camera, maybe closer to 3million by now. Why change? We are printing 40"x60" prints for that camera, and she shoots in Jpeg.

 

Buying new cameras is fun, I picked up my first new one in 6 years a couple months back, but it is not the camera that makes the picture good. Don't get to caught up in that. That is like saying if you have nice pots you can be a 5 star chef.

[pledosophy]

Forgot to say, the ISO thing your confused about is just the digital word for film speed.

 

Turn it up on your macro tank shots to increase your Fstop and that will help with your DoF. Try to get to F16 or so with the macro and see how ya like that.

[Reefer503]

I see what you mean, you have great clarity on the fishes head, but the depth of field is so narrow that the tail is blurry. I personally don't use a macro lens, I put my camera on the macro setting and manually focus using a 28-135mm USM lens. For the camera, sure, a Canon 5D MarkII or even III is great if you're getting paid for your photos and can spend the extra money, but I don't believe you need a super expensive camera to take great photos. I personally have a Canon 60D and love it! I'm by no means a professional photographer, but have been in the hobby for over 20 years.

[skulls_and_sparrows]

Im waiting on my july schedule so i can set up the workshop...

 

Unless you are doing prints for people, monitor calibration is absolutely pointless...the reason being, that 99.7% of people viewing the images online dont have their monitors calibrated and most are cheap screens so they dont render color well, so you perfectly calibrated colors will not look the same on any two monitors for the most part.....save yor money. Also most sites like FB and what not destroy image quality in favor of space.

 

As for the guy who told you to shoot raw over jpeg, is either an absolute idiot or realizes that most people wont go correct the raw image for the noise and other things. A raw image ia the purest form of the image possible. Jpegs are the cameras version of fixing issues...which the camera is terrible at...the reason raw would have more noise is because the camera is not fixing the noise for you, raw doesnt fix much (or in my case it fixes nothing), all the images out of my camera are flat and drab, but i want it that way...because I want to make changes via the computer that allows way better options and much more precise control...a jpeg does all the work for you, and does a medicore job at best. If i shoot the same image once in RAW and once in jpeg and massage the RAW image in post, i promise it will be better in every way.

 

In the workshop we can cover this...

 

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

[skulls_and_sparrows]

I see what you mean' date=' you have great clarity on the fishes head, but the depth of field is so narrow that the tail is blurry. I personally don't use a macro lens, I put my camera on the macro setting and manually focus using a 28-135mm USM lens. For the camera, sure, a Canon 5D MarkII or even III is great if you're getting paid for your photos and can spend the extra money, but I don't believe you need a super expensive camera to take great photos. I personally have a Canon 60D and love it! I'm by no means a professional photographer, but have been in the hobby for over 20 years.[/quote']

 

Completely agree...photography is a lot like this hobby, lots or retarded expensive gadgets and gear...that in a sense arent needed...there are beautiful tanks out there with very minimal gadgets and they are cheap to boot

 

Most people will never utilize even entry level camera bodies to even half thier potential...if you want to spend money...spend it on glass (lenses), they are really what makes the picture...a stellar lens on a middle level body will yeild way better results then a cheap lens on the top body, all day long.

 

And i would say 90% of people dont print much at all, usually just used to view on the computer and the ones that do print rarely go above a 5x7...and comparing prints of a entry level body and top body with the same great lens 90% of people wont be able to tell the difference. Top bodies are really used for their other ablities...super low light quality, durability, focus, speed, ease of controls with out menus, multiple card slots, etc...again most people wont ever touch these things or need them.

 

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

[skulls_and_sparrows]

I use the eye one software for calibration. I set it up, go make coffee, come back and it's done. I like it. I got mine used when the new version came out, so it was a hundred bucks cheaper. Does everything I need it to. At work we use something different, but the name escapes me at the moment. We have tried quite a few things there.

 

I spent a few years learning photography as well, then had to go back for a few more when the world turned digital. Still enjoy it. Have been shooting professionally for about 15 years.

 

IME RAW files do not create more noise then Jpegs. Raw conversion software will allow you to adjust for the noise as well to compensate. You just have to actually do it, not shoot in RAW then auto convert to Jpegs.

 

There is a funny thing about photographers and cameras now days, everyone thinks you need a new nice camera. People who play with photography are often shocked by the cameras we use for some of our studio work. It's odd because at one point not to long ago an 8 MP camera was incredible, but now that is your cell phone, just without the other bells and whistles in the body that make those 8MP work. I have a photographer I work with who uses a Canon Xt (the first rebel upgrade from 03 or so). She uses it everyday, all day. She has sold well over 2 million in work from that camera, maybe closer to 3million by now. Why change? We are printing 40"x60" prints for that camera, and she shoots in Jpeg.

 

Buying new cameras is fun, I picked up my first new one in 6 years a couple months back, but it is not the camera that makes the picture good. Don't get to caught up in that. That is like saying if you have nice pots you can be a 5 star chef.

 

Correct and just to clarify...

 

There is a difference between an 8 megapixel camera and an 8 megapixel cell phone, worlds of difference... Please know megapixels for the most part are MARKETING GIMICS TO SELL NEW STUFF!!!

 

what matters is sensor size...this is what makes an image great or cell phone quality.

 

Think of it this way...think of megapixels as things that hold water (they do hold something, they hold light aka data)...now take a super small sensor (this is the cell phone) and you need to fit 8 million water holders inside this sensor and you take a massive sensor (full frame dslr camera - there are bigger, but we wont go into that) and you need to fit 8 million water holders in it...in order to fit 8 million into the tiny sensor those water holders need to be tiny, lets say thimbul size and for the large sensor they can be bucket size containers...which will hold more water? 8 million buckets or 8 million thimbuls? Ill take my 12mp full frame camera over a 22mp point and shoot all day long!!!! Also keep in mind that once the "buckets" on the sensor are full, theg just dump the left over data...so as you can see bigger sensors hold more data which equate to better pictures...

 

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2

[Electrokate]

If you saw the monitor I am using... you'd set up a kickstarter for my calibrator (: But yeah most people don't need to do it. I have been told by people who shoot pro on facebook that many of my photos lack contrast, saturation, generally washed out. That's why I wanted to try the calibration deal. Depending on whether or not I slouch in my chair the image looks completely different on the monitor, and on the mac it's all grey, probably going to calibrate the mac instead of the PC since it at least does not need me to hold my head in a vise to view the screen at the perfect angle. Also I have looked at my smugmug account on other computers and see exactly what they mean. Lately I am pretty much auto correcting everything since I don't trust the monitor.

 

The raw vs jpg guy could be wrong. He was talking only about high iso/low light shooting IE bands and plays which I was doing a lot of.

 

Yeah, get good glass... you can rent them at Prophoto if you want to see the difference.

 

the 60D is a great camera. I don't need more megapixels, am ready for manufacturers to focus on other issues like durability, low light performance, weather proofing, and general physical design. Some of the Nikons I can't hang onto steadily without hitting a button. My OCD rich camera buddy who buys top of the line everything and owns every pro lens Nikon ever made just picked up a 300 buck Canon point and shoot, and is loving it. That tells you something... the technology has arrived at a plateau where it's all pretty usable. He is using it to do videography of bands. I stopped shooting bands and plays because he's always there with like 10K In gear so I can just look at his pics later, and he prints them up and sells them to me (:

Kate

[skulls_and_sparrows]

If you saw the monitor I am using... you'd set up a kickstarter for my calibrator (: But yeah most people don't need to do it. I have been told by people who shoot pro on facebook that many of my photos lack contrast, saturation, generally washed out. That's why I wanted to try the calibration deal. Depending on whether or not I slouch in my chair the image looks completely different on the monitor, and on the mac it's all grey, probably going to calibrate the mac instead of the PC since it at least does not need me to hold my head in a vise to view the screen at the perfect angle. Also I have looked at my smugmug account on other computers and see exactly what they mean. Lately I am pretty much auto correcting everything since I don't trust the monitor.

 

The raw vs jpg guy could be wrong. He was talking only about high iso/low light shooting IE bands and plays which I was doing a lot of.

 

Yeah, get good glass... you can rent them at Prophoto if you want to see the difference.

 

the 60D is a great camera. I don't need more megapixels, am ready for manufacturers to focus on other issues like durability, low light performance, weather proofing, and general physical design. Some of the Nikons I can't hang onto steadily without hitting a button. My OCD rich camera buddy who buys top of the line everything and owns every pro lens Nikon ever made just picked up a 300 buck Canon point and shoot, and is loving it. That tells you something... the technology has arrived at a plateau where it's all pretty usable. He is using it to do videography of bands. I stopped shooting bands and plays because he's always there with like 10K In gear so I can just look at his pics later, and he prints them up and sells them to me (:

Kate

 

 

A monitor calibrator will not fix facebook issues or any other site, that compresses and degrad images in favor of space...I get why face book does it...can you imagine the amount of space if every one was uploading massively high res images? So I get it...it sucks, especially from a stand point of a pro, that uses facebook to promote thier work...They do have a high res upload option now, but its not great.

 

The raw vs. jpeg guy is wrong, not might be...he is...if you correct a raw image in post for NR, it will look a billion times better then a jpeg image... I can promise you that. Regardless of brand, RAW will always offer better results in every condition, IF, you know how to properly manage it in post...if you dont know how to manage and process an image in post, then yes a jpeg may yeild better results. Also, keep in mind that the guys at retail stores are just that, guys are retail stores...that are getting paid not much more then min wage and are probably not the most knowledgeable...NOT to say that some are super knowledgeable, but on a whole, they are just people looking to collect a pay check and their knowledge of cameras is probably pretty slim.

 

As for manufactures making lower end bodies have the same features as their flagships...it wont happen...for 2 reasons, one the biggest market is consumer cameras, so having the most margin on profit on those is the main point...if they start putting all these features in them (like the big boy bodies get), they have to raise the cost (probably to a point where the average consumer wont want to pay for it) and there profit margin will fall...not what they want to do...plus if you start to offer these benefits in a lower level body, why would semi-pro's buy a top body over a lesser body...Trust me, the camera people have a reason for not putting those features into consumer grade bodies.

 

Yes, you can take great shots with a point and shoot, but pro bodies with pro glass offer WAY more control and better results in everyway...There is no way I am going to show up to a wedding with a point and shoot, even though it takes ok photographs. I wouldnt even show up with the nikon n1 that you see Mr. Kutcher promoting...sorry, people pay me thousands of dollars to capture their wedding and the pro bodies allow me to give them their moneys worth...a point and shoot can not. There is also a bit reassurance to people who pay me to shoot their wedding, when I show up with 25k in gear and not a point and shoot ;-) (but thats a completely different discussion as a whole)

[Electrokate]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/take-the-color-challenge-_n_1627702.html

 

I took that test and got a perfect score and did not think it was hard. This may explain a thing or two about why I am so picky about getting colors right when others don't see what I am referring to as a problem (: