Question of the Day | Is it worth the switch from Nikon?

Q: We just recently bought a Nikon D3000. We like it because it offers a “Guide” mode which is basically the idiots guide to taking a great photo. Good for a novice like myself…

But, we would like to get a few new lenses and I’m finding that not all of the lenses autofocus on this camera. We are thinking of bagging it altogether and getting a different entry level DSLR. Any thoughts on the Canon or Pentax? We feel like we are samrt people and capable fo taking great photos even without the special Guide mode. Thanks!

A: Thanks for your question! Kim and I did a two-parter to give some varying perspective. :)

• Kimberly says…

Thanks for the question, fellow Nikonian! Well, at least for the moment…

So, you’re absolutely right. Not all lenses will auto-focus on this camera - specifically, only AF-S lenses will do the job. In addition to that, if I may say, you have a couple things working against you with that model.

Guide mode, although quite handy, most other Nikon DSLRs - D60 & D90 have just as easy of a guide to navigate through, with a question mark for each topic to teach you a few things along the way. And since you and hubby are fairly quick learners, I feel you can easily get by with those alternative guides.

The D3000 has been known to be riddled with problems and has been quite disappointing based on several consumer reviews. I wanna give you the straight up goods, so here are a few of the reasons why.

• LCD- Not as sharp as even the D40, (discontinued) D60 or the D90.
• It’s a much slower camera, coupled with a cumbersome operation - already, me no likey.  I believe it to be ergonomically challenged. :)
• ISO- Not sure where you are writing from - but around these here parts - ISO can be my best friend sometimes. Unfortunately, as much as I love Toronto - it sure isn’t sunny San Diego with ideal shooting conditions and glorious light all year round. So to be restricted to 800 ISO or less, that’s definitely a no-no in my books. This leads to inferior quality of image which is *not* what you want for your precious photos!
• Live view - inconvenient - you *must* hit the play button to check your most recent image vs. it automatically popping up on the screen immediately after the shot. This is big for me. With kids you have *little* time to be doing anything other than capturing what they’re doing at *that* moment. Sometimes, we only have 2 seconds to catch something great. So to make me fiddle with the camera to check to make sure that I’m on track takes away from the time I could be spending, clicking away and snapping some shots.

So- with that said, I want to offer my recommendations, keeping with Nikon- since you have the investment of the lens and well, I really like these next couple cameras! I will note the pros and cons of each DSLR and *you* can make the call on which is best for you and hubby. :) You can’t go wrong with either!

D5000 - $569.99 CDN

• great price point for a fantastic DSLR
• superior ‘Quite Mode’
• ISO - shoots up to 6400 ( although, you’re pushing it after 3200. )
• 2.7” LCD
• less control buttons than the D90, which forces you to rely on the menu much more
• video mode
• excellent image quality
• easy to handle

D90 - $699 CDN

• great price point for an excellent camera.
• does not offer ‘Quite Mode’
• ISO - shoots up to 6400 ( same as D5000 - pushing it after 3200 )
• 3” LCD screen - sharp, sharp, sharp!
• better control buttons ( superior feature ) allowing you to get to the settings that you want *much* quicker and without having to go through the menu
• video mode
• slightly better technical image quality
• better ergonomics - making it easier to get to the menu screen
• easy handling
• high performance
• better in low light conditions
• Older AF-S lenses will work with the D90.
• The D90 has been around since 2008 - which says a lot these days with companies always feeling the need to upgrade or discontinue or modify - the D90 is a great entry level camera that has stood the test of time. At least, in camera years!

In short, for an additional $130 - you can make the jump to the D90 and have: slightly better image quality, a faster camera, larger screen, better control features, compatibility with older AF-S lenses and better ergonomics.

OR you can go with the D5000 and take that $130 and invest in a prime lens (unless you’re a zoom kind of gal! :) ) such as the 35mm f1.8? The 35mm will give you a *true* 50mm focal length, when you factor in the crop sensor with the D5000 or the D90.

• Tamara says…

I agree with Kimberly. But since saying “ditto” would be relatively short ending, I’ll say investing in a new Nikon body and keeping your family of lenses is an easy and ideal road to travel.

I don’t want to imply that, once you’ve become stuck in with a brand, you’re stuck for good. But it’s a costly switch so there is definitely an element of “switch now or forever hold onto your purse strings.”

Nikon, Canon and Pentax are industry leaders for a reason but every manufacturer has a few skeletons in their closet relating to makes and models that just aren’t up to their usual standard.

I would investigate Kim’s alternatives before making the jump. That said, if you do decide to cross over, have a peek at this post where I recommend both a Canon and a Pentax option to choose from.

Happy shopping and we hope we were able to help!

16 December 2 Permalink

Question A Day: Image Importing as Corrupt

This week I had a question.

Well, actually it was a five alarm, full on panic attack that I had to calmly, coolly collect into a question.

See, when I uploaded this photo (left), it imported into Photoshop and Lightroom as this colourful ditty (right).

Gasp. Scream. Queue the nausea. Hide under the table. Rock back and forth slowly. I just didn’t want this to be happening!

Was I overreacting? Perhaps. But my first line of thinking was how, now that I couldn’t ‘have’ that photo, *that photo* was the only one I wanted. I had snapped close to 20 different ones of Isla in and around the window, but this one… This was the one with her fingers just so, her leg just so… This was the one I wanted forever and ever. 

My next line of thinking was far more sobering. What’s wrong with my equipment, and how much is this going to cost me? Is it my camera? My memory card? This flippin’ computer again? It was a spiraling descent into finger math and quick thinking on how to get myself out of what would be my fifth technical disaster of 2010.

I took to my Twitter account and reached out to Canon, the card reader company I was using Lexar, and Adobe’s Lightroom in a desperate plea for ideas to pinpoint the drama, as well as a dear and fabulous photographer friend Kimberly Dunbar (one who, incidentally, you’ll be hearing much more from in the future as our resident Nikon expert!)

The pull through was amazing and I’m appreciative at how quickly Lexar and Lightroom’s Product Manager Tom Hogarty were in touch with suggestions. I knew how quickly and intimately Twitter worked but it’s definitely inspiring and amazing all at once to have access to such expert real-time assistance.

As for the problem, I think we’ve narrowed it down to the way I was importing the photos and the connection not being… well, good enough in layman’s terms.

See, folks. I had been lazy and just plugged the camera cord into the USB drive on the side of my keyboard. Keyboard! Unthinkable, unspeakable and clearly unsuccessful. After plugging in properly and reuploading the images, all seems to be well.

I now have this…

Manual | f/3.5 @ 1/160, ISO 400 • Editing: None (SOOC)

Let the lesson be to never take a short cut when handling your digi files and, just as importantly, never panic because sometimes there’s a way around the problem. I’m looking at you, self. :)

17 November 3 Permalink

Question A Day: Baseline DSLR

Q: countryfair asked:

I have always loved photography but haven’t really gotten into it since high school. Now that I have a little girl, I’ve been taking pictures like crazy. I want to upgrade my camera to a dslr. I am familiar with Canon’s so will go with them, but do think their baseline Rebel XS is a good camera, or should I splurge on the Rebel T1i? I am planning on learning how to really use the camera, but imagine I will mostly use the auto settings.

Thanks for your help. I love both your websites!

A: Thanks! And thank you for the question!

Here’s the thing: the Canon Rebel line is a great line, but there are shortcomings of the XS in particular that I feel are valuable to consider.

The Canon XS is currently retailing for about $580 CAD with a kit lens. The XS came out in 2008 and, as such, doesn’t have any movie capabilities. The T1i, its big brother, does have a movie capability and a higher megapixel count at around 15MP vs. 10MP.

The T1i is currently retailing for around $800 CAD. For that extra few hundred, you’re getting a remarkably better camera that you could most definitely grow into, but if you don’t think you need those extra oomph-factor features, it’s definitely not going to be money well spent.

I know you said you’re familiar with Canon, but maybe consider looking into this other option as well: the Pentax K-x which retails for about $620 with a kit lens, making it just a smidge higher in price than the XS. The thing I like about this camera vs. the Canon XS is that it’s low noise for a high ISO, 12MP, movie capabilities and an image stabilizer mechanism that is quite, quite popular.

Automatic modes are incredibly handy, and if you’re looking for a camera that will take great pics while it does the majority of the math on the settings, this might be a great option for you. Even if you have a separate movie recording device, I know from personal experience it can be really handy having it all in one so maybe consider the Pentax just to see? I just think it might give your pics that extra edge with the increased MP count, image stabilization (never hurts with little ones!) and so on.

That said, I truly believe you buy the best equipment you can afford and you make it work with attention to detail as the user. Trust me: a $10,000 camera is just as capable of taking a bad photo as a $100 one is. After all, my first DSLR is still capable of snapping a great pic if all the settings are in place properly! It’s about practice making perfect just as much as it is about the equipment.

Enjoy, and I hope that helps!

xo, Tamara

4 November 6 Permalink

Question A Day: Canon’s 55-250mm

Q: Hello, I was wondering if you could offer any insight into this lens: Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS Telephoto Zoom Lens. I am looking for a ‘zoom’ lens for landscapes and events and my price point is pretty pathetic ($300-$400). I would like something of decent quality and no fuss but I realize my bank account may make me work a little harder. Thank you. ~Liz

A: While we’re talking about lenses this week, this is a good question too.

In a landscape lens, you’re looking for something that offers a true-to-eye perspective with sharpness in every corner. Because of this, an aperture wider (lower) than f/4 isn’t really necessary. This lens does a great job capturing mountains and mole hills, that’s for sure.

For events, however, you want something that can focus quickly and adjust well at any length it is zoomed, and I bring this up for a reason. I’ve had the recent opportunity to compare this lens to others in its range and it definitely lags ever so slightly when focusing on a moving subject. It’s not horrendous, it’s not catastrophic, and it’s a good lens with good mechanics at a good price point for its capability. But there is just that ever so slight delay which could mean the difference of nailing the shot of Grandma June on the dance floor and, well… not.

Your $300-$400 price range is hardly pathetic! But if you’re going to spend a penny over $5 for a lens, you should really know what you’re investing in. I’m a big believer you buy the best equipment you can afford and, as I said yesterday, the nice part about glass is they hold their value and are easily traded in/sold for upgrades.

That said, I definitely think you should go into your local camera store with 30 minutes to spare. Compare the 55-250mm ($230USD) with the 70-300mm ($530USD). The 70-300 has a much better reputation for autofocus accuracy and speed, as well as sharpness for the <$700 price point, although it is much heavier than the 55-250 admittedly. Also, there’s definitely a financial spread between the two, but I feel it’s worth you exploring hands on to see which is right lens for your needs and if the $300 difference unlocks a new level of image opportunities for you. 

Hope that helps!

xo, Tamara

6 October 3 Permalink

Question A Day: Sigma Lenses

Q: nosmokewithoutpryor asked:

Hi Tamara!

Question. Do you know anything about the Sigma HSM lenses? I have a Nikon D60 with the kit lens, and I also bought a “prime” lens (because I heard those are great at giving me that fuzzy, bokeh effect). I do like the prime, but it’s a manual focus lens, which I’m finding to be a big pain in the toosh.

I was reading about these HSM lenses by Sigma - there is one that’s an F/2.8 18-50mm for only $199, which seems really cheap for a lens! Do you know anything about them? Are they any good? For someone who is just an amateur photographer taking pictures of her baby for the most part, would that suffice just as well as the $400-500+ versions?

Thanks!

Henna

A: Hi Henna! Thanks for the question!

Let’s see… The prime you purchased, I’m guessing is the 50mm manual focus? I can understand the frustration of that, considering you’re dealing with a mobile subject and you want to snap fast.

I personally haven’t used any Sigma lenses but a friend of mine has and he says they can pack a beneficial punch to your bottom line, you just have to know what you’re getting into.

Essentially, third party lenses are going to generally be less money, but they’re going to lack a certain finesse that you would get with a lens from the same manufacturer as the body by default. That said, lenses are one area in photography where you really do get what you pay for, so buy the best lens you can afford. The nice part is that lenses don’t really lose their value if you treat them well, and so you can always sell or trade them in for an upgrade as your budget allows.

The reason prime lenses have such a great reputation for their depth of field and bokeh blur is that, by design, they can achieve a much wider aperture than their multi-length counterparts. The beauty of this 18-50mm is that you’ve got a nice wide aperture at any of those focal lengths, whereas other zoom lenses in that range tend to offer a spread (as in, you can get f/2.8 at 18mm but only say f/3.5 or smaller at 70mm, etc.)

The reason the HSM 18-50mm is less than other lenses is that it is specifically formatted for crop sensor cameras (such as yours) and won’t work well with full frame  professional cameras. Because of this, the lens can be designed slightly differently.

Because I’ve yet to play with this lens hands on, I can’t offer a guaranteed review. Based on specs alone, I think if you’re taking personal photos of your little jam face, this lens should most definitely work. The nice wide aperture allowance is going to allow you flexibility with lighting and depth of field, and there is some room for play on your focal length. Just be mindful that the 18mm is going to funkify faces just a bit, heading into the fish eye/slight distortion realm, so be sure to know what distance from your subject you’re most pleased with the results by.

Hope that helps!

xo, Tamara

5 October 3 Permalink

Question A Day: Early Evening Hours

This mama takes absolutely lovely photos on her blog As The Forest[e] Grows. But I did see this Q on her site yesterday, so here’s my take on things. But first, isn’t her little girl an absolute darling?! Let’s gush, shall we?!

Mrs. F wrote: “Photography question:  Anyone have any advice on taking photos outdoors in the evening?  Not when it’s completely dark outside, but getting there?  Do I have to use a flash?  What settings do you use?  Am I totally sounding like an idiot, etc?  :)  Thanks!”

A: My answer right now would have to be to keep the ISO higher than you would think for outdoors, as in 400 to 800, for those dusky hours. From there, it’s a fine balance in manual mode between having the aperture open enough to catch enough light but closed enough to get all the necessary detail of the scene (maybe an f/4 as a starting point and the shutter speed low enough that your little G isn’t caught all in a blur. Another thing I like to do in the late afternoon is bump the exposure bracket up a notch or two to help compensate.

I would stick to manual mode or program, as shutter and aperture priority are going to tell you it’s too dark and shift their numbers out of proportion of what you want. Better to stay in the driver’s seat on this one.

Hope that helps but, if you’re already snapping pics like the one below, you’re definitely on the best track!

xo, Tamara

Both photos from As The Forest[e] Grows

10 September 2 Permalink

Question A Day: Capturing Bright Eyes

Q: Love, love, LOVE your blog! Thanks for all the tips. I’m hoping you can help me… I bought a Canon Rebel T1i and the 24-105 LS lens (big splurge!) so that I could take photos of my new baby. It’s amazing… but I’m just having a hard time consistently capturing the vivid blue of his eyes. How do professional photographers get those crystal clear, bright eye shots of kids? Do they use a polarizing lens? And what lenses would you recommend I use? I like to take crisp, clear close up shots with lots of bokeh. Thanks!

A: Thanks! And this is a great question!

I’m going to show you a picture out of the camera, and you’re not going to believe me, his eyes are that incredible. 

Manual | f/2.8 @ 1/125 ISO 250, 50mm fixed lens under a shady tree on a sunny (sweet mother on Earth) hot and humid day. By a lake. Lake Ontario, to be exact.

This handsome jam-face was from a family session I did the other week. Could his eyes get any more ridiculously ahhhhhh-mazing?!

Settings same as above.

Now, look at this one. Still totally going to be a heartbreaker once he discovers girls in a decade, but just that ever so slightly less piercing and blue.

The difference? He moved his head. And there’s a slight squint. But the main point is that he moved his head ever so slightly to (my) right. 

Shucks, the boy is allowed but there is definitely a difference. If you look into his eyes, you can really see the catch lights of the sun through the trees.

By using the shade of the trees as nature’s soft box and having him look up to catch the light in his eyes, that is the best way to capture the true vividness and brightness of eye colour, no matter the shade. You want it to be bright enough to let the eyes sparkle but not so bright that you blind your little one.

And you don’t have to be outside, either, especially with cooler weather on its way. Setting up by a window will produce the same effect if you catch the sun on the right angle. Just play with the various times of day!

Then, let the camera do the heavy work. I could have made this aperture in the 1’s for some serious bokeh blur, but went with a high 2 and would have even gone into the 3’s because i wanted his face completely in focus. My focal points hit on that triangle between the eyes and the nose, and I could get away with a 1/125 shutter speed because he wasn’t on the move.

Hope that helps!

xo,

Tamara

9 September Permalink

Question a Day: Canon 450D?

Q: natashababyyy asked:

I’m about to get a Canon EOS 450D just in time for the impending arrival of my Little Man. Is this a worthwhile choice and should I be able to pick up the basic techniques with this particular model?

A: HI!

He’s on his way so soon now! Every day, closer than the one before!

A few things about your question, now. Are you buying pre-owned or brand new? I ask because it swings the deal in a few directions.

The Canon 450D was brought out in early 2008, which in technology years, can make it a bit older and therefore a little less snazzy than it’s siblings down the line.

I’ve compared it for you with the Rebel T1i and T2i, both I feel comparable products with things to consider.

The T1i is from 2009 whereas the T2i is from 2010. I’ve mentioned before that, to me, the T1i is still a valuable investment within the two.

Both the T1i and T2i shoot movies, whereas the 450D does not. Something to consider with a new baby, for sure, as it minimizes the amount of tech equipment you need at your finger tips for all those amazing “honey, grab the camera” moments.

Further, the 450D’s ISO stops at 1,600 where the T1i boosts to 3,200 and the T2i all the way to 6,400. Now, will you be going that high? I wouldn’t advise it anyway, but rather fiddle with your other settings and the environmental light, but again, something to consider.

The 450D’s megapixel count comes in at around 12, with the T1i at about 15 and the T2i at about 18. The T1i shoots about 10% slower than the 450D when measuring frames per second, whereas the T2i shoots 10% faster than the 450D on the same count.

But the biggest factor is cost. New, I’m finding the 450D at around the $550 (Canadian) mark, the T1i at $750 and the T2i at $950. With such obvious $200 stepping stones, it all comes down to what the best camera you can afford is. It might be a better investment for you to go with a more inexpensive model and invest in a better lens. Or you might think you will outgrow the one faster than the other, and opt to upgrade straight out of the gate.

So, what am I saying? I’ve said on this blog before that the T1i is a fine choice, and to use that extra dosh to invest in lenses and gear. That said, however, the 450D is going to capture your lil’ man just wonderfully! It’s its job, after all!

In terms of the settings, they’re all going to be the same. And, the faster you can get acquainted with your camera before Button’s arrival, the better! This just means you won’t miss a thing! Start in auto mode to read the camera’s mind, so to speak, and then slowly work your way through mastering program, shutter and aperture priority modes. Soon enough, manual will come quite naturally after all that practice.

xo, Tamara

24 August 1 Permalink

Question a Day | Lens hood? Or not?

Q: I just bought a Nikon D3000 and opted for a few extra accessories: mostly filters from Polaroid (UV, Polarizer, Fluorescent as well as a set of Macro Filters), a larger & higher speed memory card as well as a remote. I’m looking at buying a lens hood and am wondering what the best option is and what are the noticeable differences between Bayonet, Tulip, Hard & Soft, etc. OR are there other accesories I should consider BEFOREa lens hood? I’m either thinking about an off camera flash or saving up for another lens.

— Esther, estherandcasey.blogspot.com

A: Congrats on your purchases! You’re definitely off to a well thought out start in terms of accessories. 

My super-fast and totally personal opinion answer: don’t bother with a lens hood, or just get the cheapie rubber collapsable one, saving money towards future investments in yes, an off-camera flash and/or another lens (or two! or three!)

Long answer would be…

Lens hoods are used for both an obvious reason and a not so obvious one: a) to block stray light from entering the field of view and b) to protect the lens from (reasonable) bangs and bumps. 

The differences between the various lens hoods and their shapes are all about how they filter and block light. You can leave them on all of the time, not just for high sun situations, and only need to truly mind the results of them in low light scenarios or if you’re using a camera’s built-in flash. A visit to your local camera store should help you pick the exact one that fits your creative needs, and they should let you test each one out by the window or door to see its effect, and if you like it. 

Here is my messy closet, from a little series I took yesterday for this blog. 

Manual | 1/125 @ f/3.5, ISO 800, Exposure Bracket +1

This photo, aside from telling you all this week I am cleaning out my closet, shows a few things. Additional details include:

1. Rubber lens hood was folded back: I usually have it this way. Personally, I find I don’t use my lens hood as often as I thought I might, which is why I’m pleased I only spent $12 on the soft one rather than more for the hard one. Why do I keep it attached? It’s like a rubber guard for protection when I set the camera down. 
2. Focal length of 17mm (wide angle effect): Since the focal length of the lens was all the way back to 17mm, a dark vignette feature shows up in the corners. Those dark edges are from the lens hood, and only show up when the lens is completely zoomed out. They’re easy enough to crop or digitally remove, if I don’t like them, so I never worry too much. But it’s something to consider. 
3. Linear polarizer filter used on lens: The polarizing lens filter was a worthy investment as it naturally punches up colour saturation and contrast. Further, it protects the glass of your lens; ie. it’s easier to replace a $100 filter than it is a $1,200 lens. 

Here’s one of Isla leaning on a toy with the light coming through the window at about a 45 degree angle. Focal length is 35mm (to show there are no dark corners) and the lens hood was not popped open. 

Manual | 1/125 @ f/3.5, ISO 800, Exposure Bracket +1

Here’s another one of Isla crawling away from the toy, now parallel with the window. Focal length is 35mm again, but the lens hood was popped open. You can see it’s a touch darker but not enough to cry over. The white of her onesie looks better, and the colours are more even. It goes to show it’s a personal choice as to what your desired results are!

Manual | 1/125 @ f/3.5, ISO 800, Exposure Bracket +1

Further, you can always create a quickie DIY ‘lens hood’ from a sheet of paper taped around the lens if you’re in a pinch. There are lots of ways to control the light (diffusers, reflectors, etc.) so just experiment, double check on return policies if you don’t like the results from the product, and most importantly…

Have fun! 

23 July 3 Permalink

Question a Day | Raw to JPEG to Shooting Double

Q: I have been reading your blog some, and found the question about the RAW vs. JPEG images. Would you suggest double shooting? Ny Nikon has the option of RAW or JPEG or both. What would be the advantage of shooting both over one or the other? I have shot countless pictures in my life, but just recently decided to take it to the next level, and open a business. I still have SO much to learn about the technical aspect of photography. Thanks for your time, and willingness to share your talent!

A: Hi there! Thanks for the question!

The advantage of shooting both is just that: you’d have one of each so it’s almost almost like having the instant print (JPEG, doesn’t need converted) and then negative (RAW file) is stored away for safe keeping. It seems like an ideal situation at first.

The problem is your memory card in the camera; you’re going to need more storage because you’re taking double the images. Some photographers will shoot RAW and a small JPEG so they can quickly scoot those over to the client before they’ve been retouched and post-processed. This is common for commercial shoots. 

In my personal life and my business, I’m not necessarily showing those instant shots so it’s not worth it to me to sacrifice space while shooting: I would drop from being able to grab, say, 250 images down to 130, per card. 

If you’re shooting for around-the-house personal use, you’re good with a high quality JPEG, but could go RAW if you’re enthusiastic. For professional use, I would definitely recommend RAW, retouching in RAW and then converting out to a JPEG for final retouching before delivery to the client. And if you’re doing this, having shot both a RAW and JPEG file is redundant since you’d a) have to edit both exactly the same or b) since you have more control with the RAW file, you’re going to be converting it out to JPEG anyway so - double work? Why bother! 

But that’s just my opinion, and you have to set up the workflow as best for you. Try it out for a week and see if you like it. The worst case scenario? You have double the pics, and have lost nothing in the experiment :)

Have fun!

22 July Permalink

Question a Day | What about backdrops?

Q: Hi! I love your blog, and I can’t wait to see your updates! My question is: what color makes the best backdrop? Should it be textured? I would like to take a series of my son from ages one through five, and I’d like the photos to be consistent. 

Thanks in advance,

Shelley

A: Hi Shelley! Thanks and thanks! Those updates are well in the works; I think you’ll like them. 

This is a great question. Colours for backdrops can all work, in theory. Much like we look better in some colours, rather than others, the same could be said for backdrops so be mindful of skin tone, lighting and what just plain looks good. 

That said, here are some specifics:

• I personally find neutrals to be the most flexible for backdrops. Think: white, beige, black, brown, grey, etc.  
• That said, vibrant colours can really add punch to your photos, as can graphic prints. To avoid them overwhelming your subject (as well as shadows), be sure to place some distance between your subject and the background. 
• You can use anything as a background: take a picture down for a few minutes to have use of a blank wall, drape a blanket over the backs of two chairs and have your subject sit on the floor, have your subject lie on the floor while you shoot (safely!) from a chair overlooking him… 

The list can go on and on… You can use the brick of a wall, the tiles in the shower, the front door or even your favourite window in the house. To maintain consistency, just make sure you use something that is portable or can be recreated should you ever move. 

Have fun!

19 July Permalink

Question a Day | How to Shoot Fireworks!

Q: thethimehascome asked:

My husband and I are headed to the Montreal fireworks competition at the end of the month and I was hoping to take some decent pictures. I was wondering if you had any suggestions on settings etc? I have a Nikon D60 and am relatively new at playing with the settings.

P.S. Sorry this isn’t about taking pictures of children! :)

A: Ha! That’s perfectly dandy with me! I find them quite similar, oftentimes myself! 

My advice would be to first and foremost, use a tripod or some sort of makeshift tripod. You want the camera to be as steady as can be. Also, if you can, use a cable release or remote control and set yourself up in an area where you have a good view but won’t be knocked or trampled by other people, thus blurring your images. 

For your settings, ISO is fine at 100. 

Set your aperture at the beginning around f/6.3 to f/16 and see what you like. You can always adjust quickly from either side.

If you want your pictures to look like there were multiple, fantastical bursts all at once, switch over to B or Bulb mode (check your manual). What happens is that you press the shutter button down and the “film” will only draw on it where there is light, such as multiple fireworks bursts. You then release the button. Do this a few times with various lengths of time pressing the shutter button, and you’ll soon find what works and what doesn’t for you. Ah, the glory of digital. 

If that seems too risque for your first time out, you’ll want a slow shutter speed. Like 4 or 8. 

Also, turn off auto focus and switch to infinity mode (again with that manual for specific step-by-steps) for optimum results. 

Those will be stunning; Montreal puts on a great show, so have fun!

16 July 5 Permalink

Question a Day | Raw to JPEG to Photoshop

Q: Anonymous asked:

ok, i take my pictures in RAW, then upload them to iphoto in order to sort through and delete, and then when i open in photoshop they’re all jpeg…what am i doing wrong, how do i maintain RAW, can you walk me through your process?

A: I’m going to enter this is the caveat that I only really know what I do, and somewhat was others do. I realize that is limited and… er, unhelpful here, so if there is another way around this, please someone let us know so I can pass it along!

In my experience, you’ll need this plug-in which will allow you to open RAW files in Photoshop rather than elsewhere (iPhoto, etc.) and have them automatically converted into JPEGs. You would convert them yourself, eventually, to print them or post on the web. It’s my opinion, though, to do the majority of your handiwork to the JPEG files and leave RAW be so that you always have the original ‘negative’ preserved as a back-up. 

I went a’hunting for a workflow technique that may help you more specifically, but all I found was a tutorial using snake photos as examples and… I won’t lie. I hadz the skeevies willie nillie creepy crawlies, so I bailed. 

Personally, I upload into Lightroom for cataloguing and selection, and then export to Photoshop as JPEGs. But finding the right workflow for you depends on your style, time, equipment and desired technique. In a lot of ways, the plug-in intrigues me… I’m always up for a workflow shake up in the name of efficiency. If you try it, let us know how it goes!

15 July 1 Permalink

Question a Day | All Subjects in Focus

Q: Anonymous asked:

how do i make sure that the whole picture is in focus? do i have to increase my aperture? i have the canon 24-70mm l 2.8

A: Good question! Yes, you want to boost the number of the aperture in order to gather more things in the frame to be in focus. 

At f/2.8, your lens will automatically lock onto the item closest to the camera and give sweet bokeh in the background. This is good for a single person portrait or object. 

At, let’s say f/5.6, you’re going to get a bit more in focus but still have some bokeh to play with. This is good for two or three people, etc. I photograph a lot of my newborn shots starting with this aperture. 

At, say f/9, you’re going to start getting everything sharp and in focus, and it will only increase from there. This is good for a hearty group shot, landscape, etc. 

These numbers are not hard and fast rules/recipes. Play around depending on your conditions, equipment and subject matter to find the right one for you! 

And remember to compensate with your other settings to accommodate the loss of light, such as shutter speed, ISO and exposure bracket. 

•••

I’m back! Computer troubles had me drowning my sorrows in a random jar of Nutella that was mysteriously left in my office… And this blog is difficult to update effectively on an iPhone app! Updates are coming along, as is a site redesign! Thanks everyone for your continued interest, enthusiasm and patience!

12 July 2 Permalink

Question a Day | The Right Resolution

Q: Thanks for this blog! I’m enjoying following along. My question is that I want to blow up some of my photos to an 8x10/11x14 or include them in photo books, but I get warnings that my resolution is too low. What does this mean, and how can I fix it in future?

Thanks in advance,

Melanie (via email)

A: Great question, thanks!

Image resolution discusses how many pixels (little dots) make up an image. A common reference of measure is DPI (dots per inch) which is exactly as it sounds, the number of little colour dots per inch in the photo. 

The more dots, the clearer the photo (to a degree). For example, an image on the web requires only 72-100 DPI to be seen clearly whereas an image to print will require a minimum of 300 DPI.

If you nip a picture off a friend’s Facebook album and try to print it, it will only be 72 DPI and not print clearly. And, if your camera has only been capturing low-quality JPEGs, they won’t print clearly either, beyond a wallet size or maybe a 3x5. 

When taking pictures, you want to accommodate the best quality your camera, memory card and storage (computer’s hard drive, external hard drive, burned CDs or DVDs, etc.) can take  on. 

I debated RAW vs. JPEG here. For now, we’ll focus on JPEG for both DSLR and point-and-shoot. On many cameras, you can choose the quality of image within the menu settings.

You want to always opt for a high quality JPEG. Sure you’ll have room for 300 pictures on your memory card vs. the 1,000 for a medium or low quality JPEG, but you’ll gain the flexibility of blowing that image up as large as you like. 

Hope that helps!
Tamara 

5 July 1 Permalink