BetterPhoto.com - Become a better photographer today!
EMAIL:
PASSWORD:
remember me:     
     


Photography QnA: All About Photography

Browse by Category | All New Questions | All New Responses | Q&A Home

Category: All About Photography

Interested in learning art photography? Want to become a master photographer? The following questions and answers are divided into two main groups - digital imaging and traditional, film-based photography. Learn the techniques of both here. If you want to learn more about how to make great photos take Jed Manwaring's Getting Started: How to Make Great Photographs online photography course.

Page 2 : 11 -20 of 15091 questions

<< Previous 10 skip to page
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | >> ...1510
Next 10  >>
     
 
Photography Question 
Sharon 
BetterPhoto Member
Contact Sharon
Sharon's Gallery

member since: 4/23/2007
  11 .  Outdoor Nativity Pageant
I hope to go to an outdoor nativity pageant and would like to know if anyone can give me some tips. I already know to use my tripod and wear warms clothes... it is the Great White North who know.. eh. LOL Please give me a tip or two and I'll consider that my Christmas present from you. :) Merry Christmas & Happy New Year to whoever reads this. May you receive heaven's best!!!

12/19/2013 10:41:14 PM

  Take some extra camera batteries with you and keep them in your pocket (preferably zippered pocket close to your body. Also, carry, in case you need one, a cover for your camera and lens, like a rain cover, or you can use a plain shower cap, to keep the rain, snow, sleet, freezing fog out, when you are not shooting. If you are going to be shooting, you could cut a whole the shape of the front of your lens, put a rubber band on to hold it in place, which will help to keep rain, etc. out. Wear as many layers as you are comfortable with, including a warm hat. If you do not own a pair of polartech gloves-you can purchase some inexpensive ones at national brand stores--, cut just the tips of the fingers of the right glove off that you will need to operate your camera. Lastly, take someone with you, if possible-safety in numbers; cell phone if possible; don't leave home without telling a family member, good friend, where you will be and what time you are expecting to be back. Have Fun!

12/20/2013 10:16:11 AM

  Thanks Nancy for the excellent advice.

I won't bother trying to photographing it if it's raining but will still go if just cold. The glove idea is brilliant as I have the ones with all fingers cut out and the fold over mitt but if I just had the shutter finger and thumb cut off that would work great for me.

I don't do a lot of photography at night as I feel it is not safe. My one Christmas post this year is from last year with me holding an umbrella in 7km winds, using my glove on a low lamp post as a tripod... in a semi safe area but won't do it again. It's a miracle I got a shot in at all so I am very pleased with it.

The pageant will have many other people there so it will be a safe environment.

Victoria has a few excellent night time, male photographers and I enjoy their images so much but would not tackle the winter, dark & cold conditions they do. It's a shame that this world is not safe place for woman to come and go as they please.

Just bought a cell phone and it is so new to me I forget to take it with me. LOL

Thanks again for taking the time to reply to my question.

Happy Shooting, Sharon

12/20/2013 12:40:49 PM

  I also wonder what would be the best camera settings for slow moving people outdoors in the dark with pageant lighting as for a play. Please share some tips with me... or just use special night settings on camera and not more technical ones?

Here are some sample photos that others have taken...

http://christmasnativity.ca/photo-gallery

12/20/2013 12:45:55 PM

  If you want to freeze slow moving action, 1/125 should be enough. A high ISO, around 800+. You would either need a long zoom lens (if you are further away from the stage, or get as close as possible)with a wide angle zoom. It wouldn't hurt to review your camera manual for settings, as I do not know what camera you will use, or how far you will be from your subject. Also, the lighting on the stage will affect your settings. If you could get their early and meter some shots, that would be ideal, but sometimes that cannot happen for various reasons. For my camera, (5D2), if close using Canon 24-70mm, I might try using Tv to regulate the speed of the shutter@70mm, with a fairly high ISO to stop action, without blowing out highlights. But read your manual, as only you know how to incorporate all the different settings to fit your camera and lens. Study now a few days before the show and try some shots at night at home in similar lighting, like inside in a dark room shooting into a lighter room.

12/20/2013 3:30:22 PM

  Thank you again Nancy. I will try out what you've suggested. I only know how to shoot in AV but will experiment with both my lenses... just kit lenses and go from there. If it doesn't stop raining I won't be going... which would be a shame as they put on such a lovely show for a gift to the city of Victoria every year. Lost my manual but have it downloaded on my computer. I will show you the results if I get some shots in. Thanks again, Sharon

12/20/2013 4:25:50 PM

  I miss Victoria. You love in a beautiful city! I used to live in the Seattle area, and ride the ferry over.

12/20/2013 5:12:36 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Angela Morgan
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 12/2/2013
  12 .  Is wedding photography different ?
I am a wedding photographer and I wanted to ask a question: is wedding photography different from nature photography and what kind of camera and things need for other photography fields ??

12/7/2013 5:48:17 PM

Scarlet Brown

member since: 1/11/2014
  Why not! wedding photography and nature photography both are different. For best photography if you wan to capture any photo then we should buy high pixel camera and high quality features.

1/11/2014 3:13:27 AM

  I have 30 years of experience. High Pixel cameras sound impressive but I have an old Canon G5 (5 megs) and I can still blow up photos to over 16x20 and have them look sharp. I also have a Lumix camera, because the shape of the lens (altho its over 12 megs) any photos over 8x12 are not as crisp as the 5 megs.

There are so many factors that come into play - its not just high pixel.

Wedding photography is staged photography. And in my opinion very stressful, because it is that brides special day and there is no room for error.

Nature photography in some cases, is more "natural" and is not staged.

Go to a very reputable camera store that deals with professional cameras and ask a representative who has many years of experience and she/he will guide you. There are many options available to you.

1/15/2014 2:29:26 AM

  Hi Angela,

Wedding photography is primarily different from nature photography in that you're photographing people and portraits at weddings, as opposed to landscapes and nature. The digital camera you choose should be capable of producing large prints if your customer wants them. You should also invest in a couple of good lenses for portraiture, perhaps a 50mm f/1.8 or f/2.8, and a zoom lens.

MaryAnne is correct that it's the bride's special day and there's no room for error. There's no opportunity to re-shoot the event. A wedding often consists of posed portraits as well as capturing moments as they happen, such as the first kiss as bride and groom, couples' dance at the reception, etc. Best of luck!

1/30/2014 2:29:39 PM

 
 
  Bridge at Moulton Falls
Bridge at Moulton Falls
f/11, iso100, 35mm using 16-35mm lens
 
 
I view Wedding photography much like Sports photography as it can be really fast paced and you have to be ready to capture a moment when it happens, so I would opt for something that does well with multiple frames capability. I shoot a lot of portraits, nature/landscapes & low light concert photography so I prefer a full frame camera. I dont think this matters as much for weddings but speed/quality is what I would consider. You also need 2 of everything in case something fails and having a second camera with a different lens is handy as well. If your walking around shooting portraits with your 50/85mm and then you see some kids chasing a frog across the lawn, you can zoom in with a 70-200mm on the 2nd camera and get the shot :) Nature photography is much slower and deliberate. Setting up the tripod and waiting for the light or climbing something to get a better perspective and of course early mornings & late evenings times for the best light. I also shoot many different settings with landscape using different filters and white balance, different shutter speeds for waterfalls and of course HDR as well. Thats my .02 - Love in Light, Carlton

2/1/2014 2:43:01 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Jane E. Miller

member since: 11/16/2010
  13 .  Software plug-ins for CS6
I am seeing in a lot of images a antique and linen type a look. I am wondering where that look is coming from. Is it a plug-in. Is it a form of photography software. Can someone help me. Thank you

11/13/2013 3:15:00 PM

  Jane, since none of the BP "experts" are answering your

11/18/2013 10:04:35 AM

  Jane, since none of the BP "experts" are answering your question, I will take a stab at it. These effects are achieved by using texture layers, not plug-ins, although there are some plug-ins that do achieve some of these looks. You can find texture layers online or you can shoot your own images and layer them over or under your main image and blend them using PS blending modes. There are some freebies out there, but I do not recommend downloading free stuff unless you are totally confident the source is trustworthy. Some not free but good sources are Totally Rad, French Kiss Textures, Florabella, and Flypaper Textures. These aren't generally very expensive, and some like French Kiss do offer excellent tutorials and the occasional free file (and it IS trustworthy).

Hope this helps. P.S. Sorry for the earlier attempt. I blame the cat.

11/18/2013 10:14:01 AM

Jane E. Miller

member since: 11/16/2010
  Mary,

Thanks so much for your info. I will give it a try. I started doing some research and found out about the layers and merging. But, didn't know what textures to download.

Thanks. I will let you know how it goes.

Jane

11/18/2013 10:17:39 AM

Natural/Abstract Photography
BetterPhoto Member
naturalabstract.com

member since: 5/17/2006
  Jane, I think Mary is right about the linen look coming from textures. There is also the Nik software which is a plug-in that has antique presets and also vintage, toy camera, wet plate and many others but those are the ones I can remember off the top of my head. ~April

12/28/2013 8:06:49 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Rhonda Royse
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 4/20/2009
  14 .  Lightroom Exporting
Hi - I have heard that sRBG was the best color space for the Web, and Adobe RGB was best for print. Do I have that right? Also, when exporting from Lightroom to post on the Web, what is the best size in the image sizing area? I also heard that there is a good standard rule of thumb. I have forgotten!
thanks all

10/29/2013 6:58:10 PM

  sRGB would normally be best for the Web and AdobeRGB for print, but there are still variables -- like the color space you use on your camera, the type of printing you do, etc.

I actually use sRGB for everything, and I can explain the logic. It has somewhat to do with predictability, but also because I like to output to laser light printers, which actually use photo-process, NOT ink.

There can also be issues with improper conversion, improper tagging, dropped profiles... You will likely want to do some testing.

My course Looking Good in Print and on the Web discusses all of this ;-)

There is not really a "best size" for an image. There is proper resolution. The resolution depends on the output. Most people think 72ppi for web, and 300 for print, but that is terribly over-simplified. Home injets can often use as little as 180ppi and probably will not require more than 240ppi. High resolution screens, on the other hand, may require more resolution than the common 72ppi. ... So you see, again, there are questions.

If you are using a service, they should have most of the answers. If you have more detail about what you are doing specifically, I can give you a better idea.

I hope that helps!

10/30/2013 2:04:04 PM

  This was interesting, but I could use some definitive info for uploading for BP. I've been given so many different suggestions (facts?) that it's now a confusing mess.

Convential Answer:
Longest side - 800 pixels
Resolution - 72 ppi
Size seems to be "whatever".
Format - jpg.

Others say to enter as a tif, long side at 3000, higher resolution.

To top that... I convert from RAW (Canon) to tif, then during the editing I save to psp (smaller files than tif). When the editing is finished and the file is resaved for BP, the final saveas is to a jpg. It is at this point, the message often appears that the colors will be changed to 24 (instead of 32 or 64?)

My forehead is imploding.

11/26/2013 6:21:47 AM

Angela Morgan
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 12/2/2013
  i completely agree with the richard and kathy, I also had the same problem and I found the same answer on the internet..

12/23/2013 11:25:13 AM

  Kathy,

If the image is 800 pixels on the long side and 72 ppi, it is 11 x [something]. ppi is pixels per inch, so you just divide the pixels by the PPI to get the number of inches. On the web, the pixels are what matters, not the size.

I would not use TIFF for BP uploads as it is not a web format. 3000 pixels is 41 inches, and far too much for anyone's monitor. The suggested resolution appears right on the submission pages...

---
Saved as a JPEG, TIFF, BMP, or PING file type.
Sized to no more than 500 pixels on the short dimension. For example:
500 (w) x 750 (h) for a vertical image.
750 x 500 for a horizontal image.
500 x 1250 or so for a vertical panoramic image.
Preferably 72 pixels per inch.
Less than 2.5 MB. Files larger than 2.5 MB are not accepted.
---

Sticking to these guidelines yields an image on the web that is about 10 x [x], plenty large enough for viewing, and not large enough to really 'borrow' for other purposes.

Richard

12/23/2013 7:45:13 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Corky J J. Dehorty
BetterPhoto Member
Contact Corky J
Corky J's Gallery

member since: 12/20/2007
  15 .  Where to Photograph
I live in Phoenix, which should be a place of endless possibilities to shoot pictures. But where? I went to a park yesterday and wanted to get some tight shots of kids' faces. I asked the parents' permission and they all said no! I was so disappointed. Would love to receive ideas from all of you as to how to steal candid shots of people ... or, for that matter, anything without causing suspicion in this weary world of ours.

10/16/2013 10:34:16 AM

  Hi Corky,

Your Exposure teacher here! Do you have any friends, or friends of friends who have children you can photograph? This may be your best bet.

It's a real shame that the parents in the park said no to your photography. At least you asked! If you ever see someone you want to take pictures of again, I would still ask, and offer a digital image to them in return.

As for shooting candids, I know that a lot of people do what's called "street photography" with a long lens. The subjects aren't aware that they're being photographed in most cases. However, I would still try to get permission when photographing children.

The areas surrounding Phoenix offer a lot of scenic photography possibilities, such as the San Francisco peaks, Sedona, and areas around Flagstaff. I just read in one of my latest issues of "Arizona Highways" about Hart Prairie, just outside of Flagstaff, which has great fall color.

10/16/2013 10:57:32 AM

 
 
  Summer Meltdown 1035
Summer Meltdown 1035
Canon 5D Mk II - 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens
 
 
Hello Corky, I spend a great deal of my summer shooting festivals along the left coast and what separates me from other festival photographers are my candid and people shots. Most photographers will shoot 50 pics of the guitar player and a few of their friends. I roam around the festival and find little stories that are happening all around me. There are kids getting their faces painted or chasing bubbles, couples snuggling in the grass and a colorful bunch of costumed music lovers. I have been doing this for years and many people know me but for those that dont, I will look at the parents as I am getting ready to shoot just to get their nod or smile of approval and I rarely am asked to not take a shot. Most of the festivals I attend are bluegrass, jamband type festivals and there are always lots f kids and and parades etc... Take a peek at my galleries here on BP and m,y festival galleries at http://carltonward.zenfolio.com/
Cheers, Carlton

10/23/2013 5:20:36 AM

Pat Schilling
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 3/12/2006
  Corky,
I'd suggest the Desert Botanical Garden as a nice place to shoot.
Good luck. Pat

10/24/2013 12:19:39 PM

  Thanks Pat, a great idea!

10/24/2013 2:12:22 PM

Frank Deland

member since: 11/22/2010
  Hop on a double decker tour bus, one with an open top would be great. Take snapshots with a phone or a point and shoot of places you can later go back to.

If you take a candid photo of someone you don't know, smile, show them the image on the LCD, ask if you can take some more. Kids often will ham it up for you, then rush to the camera to see how they look!

Take photos of vendors at farmers' markets. Buy one of their vegetables to help open the door. Print out a photo and return with it the next week as a gift.

11/3/2013 8:58:33 PM

Frank Deland

member since: 11/22/2010
  Another idea. Return to the park where you saw the kids after 5. You may well find people home from work walking and playing with their pets. Most won't mimd if you take a photo of Fido chasing a ball or frisbee. Share the results. I even had a person offer to pay me to take a photo of here dog playing on a beach.

11/3/2013 9:04:14 PM

Angela Morgan
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 12/2/2013
  I think this is up to photographer's creative mind where to photograph, but my suggestion is that you can capture beautiful photographs at any wedding and this is a very passionative photography and also you can earn money with this so many [URL="http://www.shakkyastudio.com/WeddingAlbums/Indian/NiroshanaandDhanushka.aspx"]Wedding Photographers[/URL]
are earning money by creating special wedding albums.

12/3/2013 4:45:06 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Corky J J. Dehorty
BetterPhoto Member
Contact Corky J
Corky J's Gallery

member since: 12/20/2007
  16 .  File Size
I am told when needing to resize an image it is best not to resample. So, how then is the best way to resize an image so it's not so large when transferring to an email?

10/16/2013 9:16:42 AM

  It is best not to resize *if possible*. Different media requires different resolutions. Monitors run from about 72ppi to 120ppi (with exceptions). Home printers will require somewhere between 180ppi and 240ppi. Offset magazine printing around 305ppi. If you have an image going to print on the cover of a 12x9 magazine, you are going to need 3660 x 2745 pixels (about 10mp). You put that same image on the web or in an email without sizing and it will be at least 30.5 inches, and likely more. Clearly over-kill.

What I try to get people to do is NEVER resize an original, but make purposed images from the original, saved as a separate file. This way, you always have the original full resolution image to make other images from -- and those images can be resized for their purpose. Once you drop them in an email, toss the copies! Otherwise you'll just collect repeats and make a mess and have bunches of files floating around.

As you will likely be sizing down significantly (depends on the original resolution), you want to use a resizing method that incorporates some sharpening or sharpen separately. Think 72ppi. 720x576 will pretty much add up to an 8x10... But you'll want to consider the purpose and the person you are sending to as well.

I hope that helps!

10/16/2013 10:18:22 AM

  I do usually keep my original, but what I have been doing is resampling a copy and then using that. What do you mean by making a purposed image? Is that what I'm doing when I resample a copy? But still, I'm resampling ... is there any other way to reduce the size?

10/16/2013 10:22:26 AM

  If you are trying to accomplish something specific like sending a smaller file through the Internet to a service for printing so it gets to the destination with full resolution, you have choices to make with compression and file type, etc. If you are casually exchanging an email with a friend, your choices might be quicker and easier.

How exactly do you want to reduce the size? Dimension in pixels? In inches? File size? I've written chapters of books on the subject of file size, resolution, file type, compression... I'm sure we can sort it out.

Tell me exactly what you are trying to accomplish.

Richard

10/16/2013 1:07:01 PM

  I'm talking about resizing to send to friends in email, or making the file smaller, for instance, for Better Photo when I need to submit a picture for my portfolio or a class. I don't have a preference as to what to reduce it to, i.e. resolution, file type or compression. I just want it smaller with good clarity for the reasons mentioned above.

10/16/2013 1:13:37 PM

Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member
gregorylagrange.org

member since: 11/11/2003
  If you want to make it quicker to send in an email, and also when the receiver opens the file to have it about the size of what you see in anyone's gallery, then you would resample. If you had a 6000x4000 original you wanted to send, you would go to image size and with resample, change to 600x400. This would reduce the file size from a bunch of Mb to kb. Making it quicker for slow internet connections. It would also reduce the image size, so the whole thing fits on their screen.
However, you could reduce file size without resample by saving a copy of it at a lower setting. Instead of highest quality of 10 save as a 4. But if you didn't do anything with the image size, that 6000x4000 would may now be a kb file, but the dimensions wouldn't change, and the receiver may be scrolling back and forth to see the whole image on their screen.
Like Eric, I mean Richard said, for viewing on your screen, you don't need too high resolution for a good image.

10/16/2013 4:56:52 PM

  "I'm talking about resizing to send to friends in email, or making the file smaller, for instance, for Better Photo when I need to submit a picture for my portfolio or a class... I just want it smaller with good clarity for the reasons mentioned above."

That was what I assumed in the first answer. If you have an image that is big and you want to make it smaller at the same resolution, you have to resample (technically called 'decimation').

If you think about pixels as lightbulbs... Say you have a bunch of lightbulbs in a 3x3 foot box, you want to put those bulbs in a 1x1 foot box, they are just not going to fit. Some will need to be sacrificed.

Resampling for a purpose is not a sin if you are careful and work from the original. Just don't resize the original, save off a copy, and then -- oops -- resave the original at the smaller size.

As it is an email and not more critical work, my first suggestion is the one to go with. And most of what Gregory said, but you may not want to go as low as 4 on the quality for the jpeg if you are already sensitive about the resizing... stick to 7 or 8. If you view at 100% on your screen (see the viewing % on the image window in photoshop or elements) before you send, you will essentially see what the recipient will...

Richard

10/16/2013 9:46:01 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Usman Bajwa
BetterPhoto Member
Contact Usman
Usman's Gallery

member since: 4/11/2006
  17 .  Leaving for London, UK. Need your suggestion.
Hello friends. I'll be off to London UK, early next week for a business visit. Since I would have three days (Thursday to Saturday) free, would love to see your suggestions/pointers on the must-see places to visit/photograph in and around London.

Would very much welcome the opportunity of a photo-shoot together, if you live nearby, are interested and have time.

Thanks in advance for your time.

UB.

9/27/2013 5:49:29 PM

Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member
gregorylagrange.org

member since: 11/11/2003
  Ace Cafe in London.

9/27/2013 7:18:28 PM

  Thanks Gregory, will check it out. Any place else you think might be interesting to see there.

UB.

9/27/2013 7:21:57 PM

  Wow, Ace sounds like fun, bikes, cars and rock n roll.

UB.

9/27/2013 11:58:29 PM

  Lots of fascinating things to see and shoot all over town. I'd focus around the City of London area if you're short of time. Trafalgar Square, Covent Garden, Piccadilly Circus. Westminster Abbey and the Houses of Parliament. London Eye for its vantage point as well as the design elements. Have fun!!

9/28/2013 8:36:35 AM

  Thanks, Martha.

UB.

9/28/2013 8:20:23 PM

  I might also hop on a train to Paris. So any guidance on major Paris places which could be done in 1-2 days is also welcomed.

UB.

9/28/2013 11:50:28 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Shannon Whit
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/8/2011
  18 .  What lens to carry/use?
Hi All, I'll be traveling to Europe (tomorrow) and want to go on a shooting spree. However, I do not want to carry lenses that I don't need. As you know it is a very picturesque place full of culture, color, insane architecture and gorgeous landscapes. I'll be in Paris, Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Brussels. Each place is unique in its own way but quite similar in richness. What lens/es would you suggest I carry with me? Although I've only been shooting for two years, I have several. Thanks for your input.

~Shannon

9/20/2013 4:52:07 AM

  Depends somewhat on what you want to shoot and also what camera you use.

For landscape and architecture, I like my EF 17-40. (I really like the TS/E lenses for but those are pretty specialized lenses ...)

For walking around (culture, people, etc), I like both the EF 20-70 and the EF 70-200. Both are f/2.8, fast, crisp and versatile in an urban setting.

9/20/2013 9:51:17 AM

Ken Smith
BetterPhoto Member
Contact Ken
Ken's Gallery

member since: 6/11/2005
  Shannon, how many lenses do you want to bring? As RK says, there are several options. If you only want a single lens, then go with something like 24-105mm. It's a bit wide angle, and a bit zoom.

9/20/2013 12:38:28 PM

Shannon Whit
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/8/2011
  Thank you for your input RK and Ken. I appreciate it. I'm carrying a Canon 5d3 and my ultimate goal is to shoot everything pleasing to look at -- architecture, landscapes, street photography, people perhaps, food, and my husband. I thought about carrying my two ir three lenses -- 24-70, 50 (food shots) and maybe the 85 but maybe the 50 will suffice for that. Additionally, the 70-200 crossed my mind. I don't wanna get there (Paris, Amerstam, Rotterdam, and Brussels) and regret not taking something with me. Thanks again!!!

9/20/2013 5:00:29 PM

doug Nelson
DougNelsonPhoto.com

member since: 6/14/2001
  You have a 5DIII? Lucky you. The L-series 17-40 would be great for you. Much of your European shooting will be wide-angle because of narrow streets. All wide zooms distort badly at the shortest end, but the 17-40 has little or no distortion at the 24-35 focal lengths you'd use most. I'd add an 85 for people and selecting parts of landscapes and maybe the 50mm macro (light and cheap) for food shots.

9/21/2013 2:57:23 PM

  Everyone's suggestions seem to make sense, and to emphasize, it really has to do with what you expect and your own style.

I know it isn't a terribly popular choice, but I used to do walk-arounds with a Sigma 18-200 DC 3.5-6.3 OS lens on my Sigma SD1... It let me get wide shots and tight without having to change lenses -- and so long as there is daylight the OS (stabilization) didn't lead to much noise or terribly long shutter speeds and blur. That camera is dedicated IR now. I changed up to a Canon 7D and use a set of 2.8 EX lenses (18-50, 70-200) for walking.

If I am going to a special spot, or know I'll be shooting models or macro or infrared, I might consider dragging along something else (monopod, tripod, extension tubes, other lens, etc.), but it really depends on what I expect to shoot as much as my mood -- and how convenient it is. Like a long hike doesn't tend to be good for carrying 3 lenses, 2 cameras, tripod, flash, and etc., but if I expect to have opportunity to use all of it, I make that sacrifice. Like I was at a gorge yesterday where there was a perfect spot for a model shoot...I only brought my IR camera -- which was OK because I intended to shoot IR and didn't have a model -- but I'll be going back to that same spot sometime with a model and hiking some gear there when I go.

Sounds like you're planning on some travel photography and walking, so the 2 lens approach sounds best for your situation.

Have fun with it!

Richard

9/23/2013 10:45:24 AM

Shannon Whit
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/8/2011
  Thank you Doug and Richard! Yes, I have a 5D3 but I saved long and hard because I knew I wanted to get the best and not later have tegrets and having to upgrade. I'm learning a lot too! Only shooting for a short time. Richard, thanks. I think I may just carry my 24-70 and 85 and use my IPhone for food shots especially since I'd have to get up from my table or scoot way back to use the 50 of my ordered meals.

Thanks for everyone's input!!!

9/23/2013 3:28:29 PM

  iPhone for food shots is a NEAT idea. why not make something of the great secondary technology you have on your phone? Nice call.

Richard

9/23/2013 4:14:06 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Kathy Wesserling
BetterPhoto Member
Contact Kathy
Kathy's Gallery

member since: 4/21/2005
  19 .  Today's POTD (9/12/13)
I'd like some learning time on today's POTD. It was a Finalist in the Catch-All category for July, and I loved it, but was so confused. To me, it looks as though it would have to be a Digital Darkroom piece to achieve those wonderful effects. The settings that were used are available with the image.

Would some of you more knowledgeable photographers look at it, and tell me how it was done? It's so fascinating, but I cannot figure it out (and it's driving me nuts!) Thanks.

http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/dynoGallDetail.asp?photoID=14013063&catID=58181&contestCatID=10&rowNumber=3&camID=

9/12/2013 6:46:21 AM

  Like you, Kathy, I think it's beautiful and the joyous energy is incredibly contagious. I don't think it's highly processed - late day light coming through the water spray and a fast enough shutter speed to freeze the action and spray would be enough. He might have enhanced the color, too. Look at the nearest figures - they look absolutely "normal".

And there's no restriction on processing in any category at BP that I know of - hasn't been for years. My biggest problem is often that I cannot create an image that has enough over-the-top "darkroom" work on it to qualify for the DD category LOL

9/12/2013 7:19:24 AM

  Here are the settings...
f/11, 1/640 second, ISO: 200, Focal Length: 185mm

Someone else suggested it was back lighting which made a lot of sense. I just couldn't figure it out by myself. I think it was the normalcy of the nearest figures that threw me off - almost like selective coloring.

There are so many photographers (Jessica Jenney is one of them) who uses textures to change camera images into near paintings. Anything like that, I consider DD and have entered a few of my pieces into that category. Maybe, that's why they never get picked - they aren't DD enough.

Thanks for your input, Nikki - it's helped me.

9/12/2013 8:26:42 AM

  It looks to me like there is the possibility that highlights were shifted towards red. That is not at all hard to do with Photoshop and color balance, though it is quite possible that the color was either natural (because of lighting conditions) or simply enhanced (saturation). A variety of simple enhancement techniques can be used to achieve this type of result -- it really depends on what the original image looked like.

9/14/2013 11:22:37 AM

  I think it was confusing because the two foremost figures have different colors and tones than all the rest. I just couldn't figure out how the tonality was achieved.

Thanks for chiming in, Richard... I still have so much to learn.

9/14/2013 11:40:15 AM

Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member
gregorylagrange.org

member since: 11/11/2003
  Back light, late day orange tint, and lots of water reflecting and refracting.
He may have used curves to clear some washed out haze you can get from back lighting. To make it look clearer. Like how you can use them to make the bars disappear on zoo shots.
But the two kids in front are on the outside edge of the water spray. Or just closer to the camera. Fog looks thickest away from you. So there's nothing unusual about them appearing clearer.
And everything you don't see about the location is playing a part in adding fill, adding color, providing a dark background.

9/15/2013 8:27:02 AM

  Again, I'm learning more (that zoo bar reference intrigues me because that's become a more frequent problem.) Focal Length is what you're talking about, Gregory - the two kids opposed to the others?

The more information that you all have added have made this image even more fascinating. There is much to it that I obviously did not comprehend. Thank you.

9/15/2013 9:04:37 AM

Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member
gregorylagrange.org

member since: 11/11/2003
  There's isn't more to it that you wouldn't see in many other outdoor situations. You've seen hazy looking skylines before. There's just as much stuff floating in the air where you are. You're just trying to look through so much of it.

9/15/2013 2:14:16 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Buddy B. Kirby
Contact Buddy
Buddy's Gallery

member since: 8/24/2008
  20 .  Photo Group
I see references to "Photo Group 101". What exactly is this?

9/9/2013 2:46:52 PM

Christopher J. Budny
BetterPhoto Member
chrisbudny.com

member since: 10/3/2005
  Hi Buddy - "PG101" is simply a subset of BP Members, who convene online through a Yahoo Group. The group sets themed shooting challenges for members throughout the month/year, holds a "Monthly Favorite" members' image contest (voted within Yahoo Groups) in addition to BP's contest & themes, and offers members another forum to talk photography, seek image critiques/constructive feedback, etc. Any BP member can join it, if interested; it just takes another existing PG101 member to initiate the Yahoo Group invite.
Let me know if you're interested, and I'll have a group moderator send you the invite!

9/10/2013 10:37:59 AM

  Yes, I am interested. I have been a BP member for years, and have taken several classes.

9/10/2013 2:09:24 PM

Christopher J. Budny
BetterPhoto Member
chrisbudny.com

member since: 10/3/2005
  Hi Buddy; no worries -- the group is open to anyone, new or old BP member, with or without classes. Just shoot me your email address you'd like to receive the invite -- you can email me at chris@chrisbudny.com

9/10/2013 4:19:18 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
<< Previous 10 skip to page
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | >> ...1510
Next 10  >>

Copyright 1996-2014 BetterPhoto.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.