Questions for the Photographers Among Us

[beemerman2k]

 

OK, these are some long time perplexing questions (and beef's, perhaps?) that I have concerning photography (and they seem to center around camera bodies):

 

1) Every photographer argues that it's the lens that makes the picture, not so much the camera body. Well, if that's so true, then why can I find 100 reviews on any given camera body for every 1 review I can find for a given lens?! I hang out on both DPReview.com and Nikonians.org, and for both sites, I cannot find a review on some bread and butter Nikon, Sigma, and/or Tamron lenses (24-70mm, 2.8, midrange zooms for instance).

 

2) For that matter, why are there camera centric web sites and not lens centric web sites? Why not a site like MidRangeZooms.com, that as a secondary benefit, review cameras that work well with a particular lens? The industry promotes the camera body, not the lens it seems -- although most good glass costs significantly more than the camera body.

 

3) What is all this about camera body "brand loyalty"?! Canon versus Nikon versus Sony versus Olympus versus...? Don't I want the tool that's going to best bring forth my own vision regardless of who manufactures it? I like Nikon camera bodies because of their low light performanace even though they only support a 12mp sensor. Given that 99% of my pictures are taken indoors at night and either end up on my SmugMug web site or they are forgotten about, I am not even using the 6mp that my 4 year old D70s supports! So why do I care about 15, 18, 21 or 24mp? I am so often criticised because I favor Nikon. Who gives a rats *ss? It's the glass, isn't it? It's the vision isn't it? Yet another example of the camera body/lens enigma, I suppose. (Having said this, that new Canon 7D looks like a real peach!)

 

4) How can I best get there from here and produce the kind of professional level results I see posted on this web forum? I do enjoy reading books on photography. I like Bryan Peterson's works, "Understanding XXX" series. I also like Michael Freeman's books on subjects such as exposure and composition. And I practice, practice, practice. One major issue I have with these books, however, is this: they seem to assume I have all day to setup a shot, compose, and shoot. My primary subject are my 3 daughters, and they move so fast and so often, that I feel I only have a split second to get the shot or it's lost forever. In fact, my slow autofocus is a major reason I want to upgrade my camera body (poor high ISO performance is another major reason, anything above ISO 640 and my pictures are toast). So I am not particularly interested in producing art, but both candid and posed people pictures of the highest quality possible.

 

I now am thinking about online classes and/or weekend workshops, like those hosted by Nikonians.org Is there another avenue I am overlooking? Anyone else take online courses or workshops or local community college classes? Can anyone recommend any particular classes or workshops?

 

Oh, and for the record, here is the camera hardware I currently own:

 

- Nikon D70s

- Nikon G series 50mm 1.8 Prime

- Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 (the latest non-VC model)

- Nikon G series 18-70 3.5-4.5 midrange zoom

 

Very seldom do I wish for more range than what these lenses provide. Most all of my shots are close up, except for when my girls have a performance of some sort (like all the Christmas shows at their Catholic schools that are fast approaching).

[Whip]

I'm more confuse now than I was before I read all your questions.

 

I have learned whatever I have learned by trial and error.....and photoshop.....and friends.

 

I have tried to read a couple books on Photography. I can't get past the first chapter.

 

I am always tryin to find a different angle or try to see somethin through my lens that no one else sees. I'll let ya know the first time I pull it off.

 

I ain't helping much.....

 

 

I have asked Francois many questions, Killer has been forced to deal with me as well. Tom is always good for a new idea. I wish Couch_Rocket would hang out with me so I could learn somethin.

David avoids me.....like he did Halloween.

 

I'm gonna go read Marks Oil Thread.

 

Later

 

My gear

Nikon D80

All Nikon lens

12 X 24

18 X 135

80 X 400

 

 

[David]

You won't find reliable reviews of less expensive lenses because people just don't bother. There are terrific and reliable reviews of mid- and high-end lenses, though. Start at FredMiranda.com and bhphoto.com. The brand-specific forums are jaded.

 

There's absolutely no question that Canon has a better selection of top notch lenses, but Nikon has most everything covered in an acceptable manner. And their bodies have jumped ahead of Canon in some key areas (until the 1DsMarkIV is released in January).

 

I wish Larry would chime in on this thread.

[Rocer]

[beemerman2k]

FredMiranda.com, slrgear.com, now that's what I'm talkin' about! Great sites although obviously I haven't had time to really look through them. They seem to be exactly the kind of site I am looking for. Great, in depth, lens reviews.

 

I go to BHPhoto.com to lust after some ultra-expensive hardware, but I wasn't aware they also provided reviews, too. Doh!

 

Until now, I read threads where various photographers debate whether a given lens is good or not, with absolutely no scientific data to support the arguments. So these sites are a welcome change of pace. Thanks!

[kooshbal]

Its not what gear you have or do not have that will make that ultimate set-up. You can spend all your time on web-sites reading what body or lens combination is the best or you can simply log off, grab your camera and lens and learn how to get the most out of your camera and the lens that is attached. Photography is a journey and self expression as to what interests each of us, capturing family moments or scenes that you think are cool. I for one enjoy reading the threads and learning how the new camera’s work and then going out in my environment and taking pictures. I am still a newby. And I have been at this since 2006. I have some good equipment and some good lenses. Do my lenses front focus or back focus? Probably. Are some of my pictures soft, yes. Some of the pictures posted here by those who are considered experts are soft. IMO

[RichEdwards]

Also check out: www.kenrockwell.com

I have found his camera reviews very comprehensive. His lens reviews are excellent as well.

Purchased my Nikon D90 and Nikkor 18-200 3.5-5.6 G ED based on his reviews and recommendations.

[Selden]

Any of the current generation of cameras can take great photos at a technical level, although I agree that, across the line, Canon is hard to beat. So, if they can all take great photos, how do you choose? When I bought my first microwave oven, I just went down a row, and picked the first one that I could figure out how to use without reading any documentation. User interface is important; what's intuitive to me, might be perplexing to you. If you can't figure out how to use the damned thing when you're trying to take a photo, the moment may pass before you figure it out. Handle as many cameras as you can, then pick one that feels right. Then take as many photos as you can. One of the joys of digital cameras is that there is no incremental cost to taking a photo. Don't like it? Delete it. Once you've gotten to this point, consider taking a class. A good teacher's perspective, plus the challenges of assignments can take you to the next step.

[AnRSguy]

One thing many people miss is examining their bad photos and asking, "what went wrong?" Did you make the error or did the camera? You will learn more from examining your poor photos and then figuring out why you are hitting the delete button.

 

My wife used to shoot into the sun and was always disappointed in her photos. Once she understood that the light should fall on the subject and not the the front of the lens, she got a lot better. And, yes, I know there are exceptions to that.

 

Keep shooting.

[Knifemaker]

My primary subject are my 3 daughters, and they move so fast and so often, that I feel I only have a split second to get the shot or it's lost forever.

 

James...I do not see in you listing your CF card..If you do not have one consider an Extreme III card...With this you can fire off over 144 frames at 3 frames a sec without taking yur finger off the shuttter button. That can take care of any movement your girls can come up with. Indoors he 50mm 1.8 in combination with the D70's ability to flach sync to 1/500 and maybe a Nikon SB-600 flash unit can catch anything. Your D70 is an excellant camera easy to work with...The best way to take better pictures of the types of picture you want to take is experiment with the camera in different modes and have photo sessions with you girls as a learning experience so when those real experiences come around you KNOW what to do....sounds like riding your bike right?

[beemerman2k]

Bill, I do use SanDisk Extreme III cards in my camera. This is purely coincidental as I seem to always come across these cards at a sweet price.

 

I'm not yet into flash units. I love natural light pictures; the flash -- at least when ever I use one -- looks very artificial. I suppose it wouldn't hurt me to investigate a real flash unit (as opposed to the flip up unit on my camera).

 

Oh, one more thing, I am really digging these web sites you guys recommended. Thanks! DPReview.com is a great place to hang out on, but their lens reviews are sorely lacking compared to the slrgear.com and FredMiranda.com

[Allen Rowand]

You should also read bythom.com. There's a ton of info for Nikon shooters, and his manuals are great.

 

Off camera flash is a different world from the popup! Check out strobist.com. It's all about getting results from minimal stuff.

[beemerman2k]

Thanks Allen, I'll check out the site. I have heard of strobists; I own a SB28 flash unit from my N70 days. It's been collecting dust. From what I understand, I might be able to get new life from it taking a strobist approach. So looking into this is on my things to do list.

 

Here's one subject I don't fully understand: the relationship between my camera's light meter and the focusing system. Does the focus determine where the light is being metered from? Let's say I am taking a picture of a person, and there is a bright light some distance behind that person (maybe the sun, for instance), but I am using a wide open aperture such that my subject is in focus and everything behind that person is a blur. Will the light meter ignore the sun and only read the lighting on the subject, thus potentially blowing out the background, or does the focus have little/nothing to do with where the meter is reading light from, and thus my subject is underexposed? Is this camera dependent? Does the answer depend upon metering mode (matrix, center weighted, spot)? What is the relationship between the light meter and the focus point, if any?

[Lets_Play_Two]

Bill, I do use SanDisk Extreme III cards in my camera. This is purely coincidental as I seem to always come across these cards at a sweet price.

 

I'm not yet into flash units. I love natural light pictures; the flash -- at least when ever I use one -- looks very artificial. I suppose it wouldn't hurt me to investigate a real flash unit (as opposed to the flip up unit on my camera).

 

Oh, one more thing, I am really digging these web sites you guys recommended. Thanks! DPReview.com is a great place to hang out on, but their lens reviews are sorely lacking compared to the slrgear.com and FredMiranda.com

 

You can read and read and read about taking pictures and using flash and using photoshop but there is no substitute for getting out and taking pictures so you can see all that work. If you want some instruction without the time investment a workshop takes look at www.Betterphoto.com. You take pictures and get critiques and can use that as a starting point.

[beemerman2k]

Thanks for the tips all, but let me say this: I take a minimum of about 500 pictures every weekend, and usually much more. My shots are captured in both RAW and JPG with my 8GB Sandisk Ultra III cards. My youngest just learned to ride a bike, tutored by her older sisters. Got it all in photos. School parties, sports activities, ballet dances -- every weekend I am snapping off pictures of my girls involved in some activity. I play with aperture, metering, shutter speeds, ISO -- all manner of stuff. My camera is NEVER set to "Auto" or "Programmed" mode, I am almost always in Aperture Priority, Shutter Priority, or Manual mode.

 

When I get home late tonight, I'll post some of my favorites. I am not sitting around reading books, I am out there wearing the shutter on my D70s!

 

Oh, and one more thing: I delete NOTHING. I keep all my work, gross mistakes and all. I have a 3TB striped disk drive volume on my computer, so I have plenty of space for my pictures. Every night, I go through my work and evaluate my shots. Right now, my focusing needs work. So often my girls playing basketball or dancing are out of focus, but the wall behind them is as sharp as a tack!

[AviP]

1) Every photographer argues that it's the lens that makes the picture, not so much the camera body. Well, if that's so true, then why can I find 100 reviews on any given camera body for every 1 review I can find for a given lens?! I hang out on both DPReview.com and Nikonians.org, and for both sites, I cannot find a review on some bread and butter Nikon, Sigma, and/or Tamron lenses (24-70mm, 2.8, midrange zooms for instance).

A new fixed or zoom lens gets updated perhaps in a 3-5 year cycle. A new camera in the digital world gets updated much more frequently, especially at the low end. Reviews are useful if you have a choice and most of the manufacturers have only one lens for a given focal length and aperture.

 

2) For that matter, why are there camera centric web sites and not lens centric web sites? Why not a site like MidRangeZooms.com, that as a secondary benefit, review cameras that work well with a particular lens? The industry promotes the camera body, not the lens it seems -- although most good glass costs significantly more than the camera body.

You hit the nail on the head. Once you are sold into the body, the lens follows. So why market the lens, they market the body instead. Besides in the modern digital age, it's easy to confuse the beginner by selling into the Mp size. So 10Mp is way better than 6Mp even though you and I know that's not all to it.

 

3) What is all this about camera body "brand loyalty"?! Canon versus Nikon versus Sony versus Olympus versus...? Don't I want the tool that's going to best bring forth my own vision regardless of who manufactures it? I like Nikon camera bodies because of their low light performanace even though they only support a 12mp sensor. Given that 99% of my pictures are taken indoors at night and either end up on my SmugMug web site or they are forgotten about, I am not even using the 6mp that my 4 year old D70s supports! So why do I care about 15, 18, 21 or 24mp? I am so often criticised because I favor Nikon. Who gives a rats *ss? It's the glass, isn't it? It's the vision isn't it? Yet another example of the camera body/lens enigma, I suppose. (Having said this, that new Canon 7D looks like a real peach!)

I don't care about brand loyalty either but I had $2500 invested in my camera and $10000 in lenses and flashes. So whether I like it or not, I'm loyal to Canon now. But I did have the choice of going Nikon or Canon and I chose Canon because of their FF sensor on the 5D a few years ago.

 

4) How can I best get there from here and produce the kind of professional level results I see posted on this web forum? I do enjoy reading books on photography. I like Bryan Peterson's works, "Understanding XXX" series. I also like Michael Freeman's books on subjects such as exposure and composition. And I practice, practice, practice. One major issue I have with these books, however, is this: they seem to assume I have all day to setup a shot, compose, and shoot. My primary subject are my 3 daughters, and they move so fast and so often, that I feel I only have a split second to get the shot or it's lost forever. In fact, my slow autofocus is a major reason I want to upgrade my camera body (poor high ISO performance is another major reason, anything above ISO 640 and my pictures are toast). So I am not particularly interested in producing art, but both candid and posed people pictures of the highest quality possible.

I generally classify photography into 3 major sections: landscape, portrait and macro. Obviously there are way more categories but in a way they are all built on these three. I consider myself good at landscape composition but horrible at candid portraits. Posed portraits are really a matter of controlled lighting, appropriate depth of field and props. I recommend looking at glossy magazines that have little content but are heavy on ads and taking a page (excuse the pun) out of them. Also invest in good lighting equipment especially for indoor shots.

 

I now am thinking about online classes and/or weekend workshops, like those hosted by Nikonians.org Is there another avenue I am overlooking? Anyone else take online courses or workshops or local community college classes? Can anyone recommend any particular classes or workshops?

Adult education classes at your local school/college are helpful but they cater primarily to newbies. If you think you need to reinforce your principles of photography, then it's right for you. OTOH, there are some courses that are very focused and offer a lot of information.

 

Oh, and for the record, here is the camera hardware I currently own:

 

- Nikon D70s

- Nikon G series 50mm 1.8 Prime

- Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 (the latest non-VC model)

- Nikon G series 18-70 3.5-4.5 midrange zoom

 

Very seldom do I wish for more range than what these lenses provide. Most all of my shots are close up, except for when my girls have a performance of some sort (like all the Christmas shows at their Catholic schools that are fast approaching).

My equipment is all Canon except where noted.

- Body: 5D

- Lenses: 85mm f1.2L, 16-35mm f2.8L, 24-70m f2.8L , 70-200 f2.8L, 100mm f2.8 macro, 1.4x extender.

- Flash: multiple 580EXII with remote

- Tripod: Gitzo GT2541 w/ Markins QBall M20 ball head.

 

Wish list: I want a 400mm f2.8 real bad but at $7500 I need to make photography a profession first.

[SeanC]

500+ photos per week... wow. I'm impressed. I shoot about that many every three months or so.

 

I share your gripe regarding equipment and technique information, but my situation is a bit different. I don't enjoy experimentation all that much. The art director in me knows exactly the type of shot I want; I simply don't know enough about my camera's features, nor do I have the proficiency to quickly select and exploit those features while I'm shooting. I've read the user guide, but very little of it feels obvious or natural to me. I don't quite grok why Canon's engineers designed things the way they did, which results in this nagging feeling that I'm doing something wrong. Again, I don't want to twiddle and experiment with settings -- I want to know exactly what to do to get the shot I have in mind.

 

In that sense, I find Scott Kelby's books and tutorials useful and satisfying. He employs a "just do what I do and you'll get the right shot" approach. He focuses more on results and less on explaining the vast array of features.

 

My stuff:

- Canon 40-D

- EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 (I want to like this lens more than I do)

- EF 50 f/1.8 (my favorite lens for shooting the kids indoors)

- Tamron 28-200 f/3.8-5.6 (Photoshop's unsharp mask makes it decent)

- a bunch of Extreme II 8gb cards

 

I'm currently trying to decide on my next lens... Should Santa get me the EF 70-200 f/4L or the EF-S 10-22 f/3.5-4.5? I really covet an 'L' lens (and the f/4L is the only affordable one), but think I could get more use out of a good wide-angle lens. On the other hand, do I really want another EF-S lens? If I go full-frame on my next camera, I won't be able to use them....

 

[Lets_Play_Two]

Does your camera allow you to do a servo-type focus---initial focus and then it follows movement? Almost necessary for sports and active kids.

 

Re: saving everything...that 3 tb will be gone in a hurry with RAW. IMHO part of photography is learning to be your own best critic. Make notes of what went wrong, but dump the mistakes or anything you wouldn't want to print. At a Friday night H.S. football game I will take close to 300 photos...just about fills the 8 gig card. Two-thirds will survive for posting for the parents...they buy 4X6 from jpegs, and 10% will stay on the hard drive in RAW format.

 

[AviP]

On the other hand, do I really want another EF-S lens? If I go full-frame on my next camera, I won't be able to use them....

IMHO, if you are considering upgrading in the future, don't go with an EF-S lens. It's just dead money and they don't hold their value much either. I suggest you save your money for a f2.8L lens. They are just unbelievable in low light especially if shooting with any Digic IV based Canon SLR.

 

Also, you will be surprised at how cheap you can get a used FF camera, especially right after an update is released.

[AviP]

Does your camera allow you to do a servo-type focus---initial focus and then it follows movement? Almost necessary for sports and active kids.

 

Re: saving everything...that 3 tb will be gone in a hurry with RAW. IMHO part of photography is learning to be your own best critic. Make notes of what went wrong, but dump the mistakes or anything you wouldn't want to print. At a Friday night H.S. football game I will take close to 300 photos...just about fills the 8 gig card. Two-thirds will survive for posting for the parents...they buy 4X6 from jpegs, and 10% will stay on the hard drive in RAW format.

+1. I dump most of my crap immediately. Saves me the sorting and stuff for later. I also hate doing any post processing simply because I don't like artificial shots. If I ever go professional or I'm expected to do post processing, that's only when I go RAW.

[SeanC]

I suggest you save your money for a f2.8L lens. They are just unbelievable in low light especially if shooting with any Digic IV based Canon SLR.

 

How much difference is there between the f/4L and f/2.8L? I know the 4L doesn't have IS, so I'd imagine the 2.8L would be better in low light, but what about other shooting situations? You can get the 4L at B&H right now for $599....

 

Also, you will be surprised at how cheap you can get a used FF camera, especially right after an update is released.

 

Yep. My previous camera, a Canon D30 with the afforementioned Tamron lens, a battery grip, two batteries and some other stuff was purchased from a friend for $300 bucks about 3 years after it was new. As soon as he's done with Yada Yada Mark Whatever, I'll probably buy it for a song too.

[John Ranalletta]

My XSI, purchased a year ago, might be for sale on ebay because:

 

Demo'd here

[AnRSguy]

I know the 4L doesn't have IS, so I'd imagine the 2.8L would be better in low light, but what about other shooting situations?

 

Actually both the f4 and f2.8, 70-200's come in IS and non-IS configurations. The f4 is obviously smaller, lighter and less expensive but does not include the tripod mount ring. The f2.8 will focus faster, more light hitting the sensor, and will allow a faster shutter speed, given the same ISO and lighting. Both lenses give exdellent results.

 

 

[beemerman2k]

Wow, that 7D is sweet!

 

But what's that thing perched on top of it?

[chrisd]

Here's a terrific site for lens reviews. You can see the complexity involved with properly reviewing lenses. BTW, looks like your lenses were reviewed there.

 

Here's a wonderful collection of tips from Kodak.

 

Learn the basics, and learn them well. There are reasons why you stop at certain photos when you're flipping through a friend's vacation photos, and there are reasons why you don't. Those reasons are out there. Rule of thirds, the golden mean, more space below a head than above, eyes at different levels in a group photo, don't place the center of attention in the center of the photo....

 

One of the hardest parts of photography is for the photographer to determine just what it is he's trying to accomplish. What is this a picture of? If it's your wife, why is the Golden Gate Bridge in the background, drawing my attention away from the subject? If it's the bridge, why is someone blocking it, forcing me to look around her? Once you've figured that out just what it is you're trying to show, how do you show it in the strongest way possible? Don't make us guess. Collectively, we're lazy, and we'll quickly move on to the next photo, or leave.

 

"To compose a subject well means no more than to see and present it in the strongest manner possible." - Edward Weston

 

Then there's the issue of how good you really want to get and how much criticism you can take. If you can, find someone whose photos you admire and ask him to rip your work. Really rip it.

 

For the photography you're primarily interested in, I suggest you concentrate on learning photojournalism. There's tons of info on it out there.

 

500+ photos in a weekend is far too many. Although you're shooting quickly, try to make each one count. Getting lucky because of the sheer number of shots is one way to go, but it seems like you're striving for more than luck.

 

Finally, learn Photoshop, Photoshop Elements, or an equivalent.

[George Brown]

Great thread - thanks for getting started.

 

I've been considering moving into the digital SLR world for several months now. Have pretty much zeroed in on the Canon 50D with the 18-200 EF-S lens. Presently use a 28-105 and a 70-300 with my film camera - the 18-200 will cover those ranges with one lens which will be a help when traveling.

 

The review sites listed above look like they will be a great help. Thanks to all who have posted for their suggestions.

[tallman]

Sorry George, I disagree..

James,

500 pics/wkend?

And no ride tales?

Hmmph.

Put down the camera, go for a ride.

That is all.

[Couchrocket]

How can I best get there from here and produce the kind of professional level results I see posted on this web forum? I do enjoy reading books on photography.

 

 

 

I've been following this thread for a couple of days from my iPhone. Lots of great advice and good humor, as usual.

 

I'll try not to double up on what's been said well already.

 

You shoot "a lot!" That's a great first step. My question would be, how do you go about editing / evaluating what you've shot?

 

Do you cull your keepers and dump the rest? And, do you know what “good” is when you see it? Pedantic questions, I know, but sincere. Kids are, indeed, one of the most difficult subjects to shoot, especially when “on the move.” But knowing when you’ve got something good is a first step to anything in photography.

 

So, first let me ask you to share 10 of your “best” photos of the kids and tell us why you like them the “most” from all the thousands you’ve shot!

 

Now I’ll move on and offer some general photo advice that has served me well over the years.

 

Reading books is fine and a great way to learn technical stuff. Looking at photos is even better. Look at all the photos you can and when some of them “grab you,” ask yourself these kind of questions: long lens or short? Viewing angle: high, low, eye-level, where? Light: front, side, back, natural, direct, diffuse, what? Color: strong and saturated, muted and pastel, color “important” and adds to / or “makes” the image – or color just “there” and not really add to the image???? Image format: 3:2, 1:1, 4:3 and does the “shape” of the final image add anything to its impact or is it irrelevant? Is the image dynamic or static? Is it a “high frequency image” (lots of detail all over the place) or low frequency (simple and lots of “planes”).

 

If you do this “seriously” what will happen is that you’ll begin to see a pattern or “groups” of patterns that make up the elements of photos that grab “YOU.” Then compare this “sense of thing” to the images you’ve shot that you like best! You’ll see correlation, and more important, you’ll see small elements in your own photos that could have been different that could have made them stronger.

This is the way you develop your own style, based on your almost unconscious preferences in images.

 

I used to love to look at National Geographic back in its glory days. I loved the photos, in general, and MANY of them really grabbed me. I set about doing what I’ve described above and had an epiphany that dramatically changed my way of shooting back then. If you have old Nat Geos drag them out and see that what I’m about to share for yourself. Here’s what I discovered: Very rare to see a photo taken at eye-level. Almost always either much lower or much higher than eye level! Almost never see a photo taken at “high noon.” Almost always either early morning or late afternoon! Almost never see a photo taken with dead-bang “front lighting.” Almost always strong side light with some kind of natural fill, or rim-lighting from behind w/ fill, or even “flash” from the side with fill. Most color rendering is either very bold, or very muted – nothing much in the middle. Composition is either really really “tight” or very broad. Composition is almost always VERY simple, and pared down to the fewest elements possible to “tell the story.”

 

I learned a lot from that exercise!

 

OK. Lenses.

 

No such thing as a bad lens. Really. As David often says, “Horses for Courses.” A really stunningly sharp lens may be a poor choice for portraits. “Fast” (expensive) lenses are great for only two reasons: First, the viewfinder is nice and bright because more light is coming in! Made it easier in the “olden days” to focus in low light manually, and helps somewhat with AF cameras for the same reason. Second, a fast lens will provide more control of the depth of focus in an image. Other than that, they are just “fast and expensive.” Often a slightly slower lens of the same focal length by the same mfg. will actually be a better performing lens in many optical parameters.

 

So, the issue is “what do I need, really?” Start first by going back to your photo “looking” and see what % of images that grab you are on the wide end, long end, normal, short tele, etc.? That should guide where you spend your money first. And, if creative use of depth of field is a factor in a lot of the images that grab you, then a fast lens in that focal range may be calling to you and worth the extra expense.

 

So, there isn’t really any rule re the more money you spend the better the lens will be. It is more, “What lenses do I need to produce the kind of photos that grab me?” A cheap, somewhat slow, lens of short telephoto design is often a great choice for a portrait lens, for example.

 

Kids:

 

Think of moving kids like you would any other moving subject. At a race, you can set up for a corner shot, pre-focus and put the camera into manual focus mode so that your camera doesn’t waste precious time hunting. Well, set up a fun game for the kids where the light is how you like it, from the angle you like, with a background you like, etc. and have them “zooming by” playing the game or whatever. Be pre-focused, pre-metered, so that you can just concentrate only on the image in the frame.

 

Take this concept and apply it as best you can to all the “opportunities” you have in your mind’s eye for good kid photos!

 

Here’s a real-life example. My grandson was born a year ago, and I had the blessing of being in the room with my son and daughter-in-law as soon as she was settled and little “Everett” brought to her. Here’s an image typical of the crowded, “medical junk,” bad fluorescent light, etc. found in a maternity room:

 

 

 

And here is what I did to get a portrait of my new grandson in the midst of all that “stuff” that seemed distracting to me. You’ll notice that I kept both! The first is “where we were and what was happening.” Fine for context. The second, well, that’s “my vision” of my grandson at 45 minutes old!

 

 

I reduced the composition to the fewest elements possible, I had my son hold him so that one of the lights cast a light on him that I liked. I tweaked the color balance to something in the range of “human.” So, to my way of seeing, I “made” an image that is on the order of images that “grab me” in the middle of circumstances that didn’t at first seem to lend to such an image. But because I had learned to “know what I like,” I was able to capitalize on the situation and make things happen, rather than just “take what was there.” These two photos were taken about 2 minutes apart.

 

 

OK, soapbox stowed for today.

 

 

[beemerman2k]

Here's a terrific site for lens reviews. You can see the complexity involved with properly reviewing lenses. BTW, looks like your lenses were reviewed there.

 

Yes, slrgear.com is a great site indeed. I've looked up my glass and many others that I am interested in buying someday. Of course, like any reviews, I keep in mind how well the lens will perform with respect to how I plan on using it.

 

Here's a wonderful collection of tips from Kodak.

 

Learn the basics, and learn them well. There are reasons why you stop at certain photos when you're flipping through a friend's vacation photos, and there are reasons why you don't. Those reasons are out there. Rule of thirds, the golden mean, more space below a head than above, eyes at different levels in a group photo, don't place the center of attention in the center of the photo....

 

One of the hardest parts of photography is for the photographer to determine just what it is he's trying to accomplish. What is this a picture of? If it's your wife, why is the Golden Gate Bridge in the background, drawing my attention away from the subject? If it's the bridge, why is someone blocking it, forcing me to look around her? Once you've figured that out just what it is you're trying to show, how do you show it in the strongest way possible? Don't make us guess. Collectively, we're lazy, and we'll quickly move on to the next photo, or leave.

 

"To compose a subject well means no more than to see and present it in the strongest manner possible." - Edward Weston

 

Whew, photography is way more complex than I had ever imagined when I got the shutter bug. It's difficult enough to get the camera settings to match the vision in your minds eye (ISO, Aperture, shutter speed, exposure compensation, white balance, color saturation, post processing, etc), but even getting that right isn't enough. You must create a compelling composition as well. And at the end of the day, even that isn't enough, it must be a picture of something someone is interested in looking at!

 

But some of you guys are really incredible photographers. David Baker creates fine art from an old, abandoned barn in the Dominican Republic, or a framable piece of work of a bike rack in London, England! Killer's work is quite unforgettable, too. And Scott's recent pictures of Death Valley -- oh my goodness! These guys are compositional geniuses in my view.

 

Then there's the issue of how good you really want to get and how much criticism you can take. If you can, find someone whose photos you admire and ask him to rip your work. Really rip it.

 

I was too tired when I got home last night, but I will post some pictures tonight or this weekend to illustrate some of my frustrations, and to welcome feedback as well. I don't really take criticism as criticism because only I know what it is I am after, no one else can determine that. All anyone can do is to speculate what might make the picture more compelling to them, but that might not be what I am ultimately after. Nonetheless, there's way too much here for me to keep in mind, so I welcome feedback so I can be reminded or made aware of issues that I may be neglecting.

 

For the photography you're primarily interested in, I suggest you concentrate on learning photojournalism. There's tons of info on it out there.

 

Great idea

 

500+ photos in a weekend is far too many. Although you're shooting quickly, try to make each one count. Getting lucky because of the sheer number of shots is one way to go, but it seems like you're striving for more than luck.

 

While my girls would definitely agree that Daddy gets nutty with the camera, I don't really think so. On one hand, I get your point: better to shoot 10 meaningful pictures than 1000 very forgetabble ones. On the other hand, I am attempting to capture action and life experiences as they unfold. These events are not static, nor are they isolated or periodical. They are constantly happening -- each time my daughter launches off on her bike, who knows what might happen? I want to be there to capture it when it does. When she does her ballet performance, again, I want to capture key images and any surprises along the way, too. When my girls interact or do something peculiar, which is often the case, I want to grab that as well.

 

I am not just sitting on the shutter virtually taking what amounts to a video of my girls in a series of 500 photos! I may as well just get a video camera and be done with it. No, I am instead looking for and trying to capture that key event, that magic interaction, that surprised expression, and they happen often and unpredicably.

 

Tim: you are right with respect to getting some good riding shots in. Remember, my bike is still in LA! , so I am not doing much with other motorcyclists these days. In fact, hanging out on this forum is pretty much all the contact I have with other riders anymore

 

Finally, learn Photoshop, Photoshop Elements, or an equivalent.

 

I hate post processing. I am so friggen busy that when I get home from whatever event I just photographed, it's enough to shrink the photos down and put them online. If I add post processing to the workflow, well I'll never get anything done. But I do need to set aside some key photos after every shoot and make sure I keep those raw files and maybe do some post on those.

[Couchrocket]

I hate post processing.

 

At the risk of sounding like a photo-snob... if you're not shooting RAW and then "making images in the light-room" (much as we did in the wet-dark-room of old) - you're at the mercy of what some electronics engineer decided in a small room somewhere.

[Couchrocket]

Also . . . "equipment" is just tools in the tool box. No magic bullets. As often as not, it will get in your way unless you do have that that idea of what an image is that "grabs you."

 

What do you think of this image?

 

 

Many will not like it. But I do. Strong composition, sense of drama and mystery. AMAZING depth of field! Interesting angle of view, lighting and the like.

 

Taken with a wooden box, a pice of film at the back, a pin-hole through a sheet of brass in the front. No sensor, no lens. Just a vision in my mind after walking by this scene about a thousand times at all times of day, a stop watch for a shutter!, and wondering how I could capture it in a way that "grabbed me."

[SeanC]

No such thing as a bad lens. Really.

 

I shoot a lot of nice kid portraits with my EF 50 f/1.8, a Canon lens available for about $80 bucks new. Like this one, shot in the bathroom with poor light in the evening without flash:

 

 

Back when I was teaching typography at Platt College, I'd give assignments where students had to draw the name of a typeface out of a hat, then create several different types of designs using only that one typeface. At first they'd struggle with the perceived limitations of the typeface they had selected, but after some time they learned just how much they could do with a single font.

 

Because I'm no where near as experienced and learned in photography as typography, I tend to get into trouble when I have a lot of choices. I should follow my old teaching method, pick a lens, then shoot everything with it for a few months.

[beemerman2k]

 

Great post, Scott! Thank you.

 

Do you cull your keepers and dump the rest? And, do you know what “good” is when you see it? Pedantic questions, I know, but sincere. Kids are, indeed, one of the most difficult subjects to shoot, especially when “on the move.” But knowing when you’ve got something good is a first step to anything in photography.

 

So, first let me ask you to share 10 of your “best” photos of the kids and tell us why you like them the “most” from all the thousands you’ve shot!

 

Fantastic question, and the short answer is "no, I don't know what's good". The more involved answer is, "yes, I do have some favorites, so I'll post them".

 

Look at all the photos you can and when some of them “grab you,” ask yourself these kind of questions...If you do this “seriously” what will happen is that you’ll begin to see a pattern or “groups” of patterns that make up the elements of photos that grab “YOU.” Then compare this “sense of thing” to the images you’ve shot that you like best! You’ll see correlation, and more important, you’ll see small elements in your own photos that could have been different that could have made them stronger.

This is the way you develop your own style, based on your almost unconscious preferences in images.

 

Great idea, I'll do this, although I do have in mind a category of pictures I'd most like to create. Close up, uncluttered shots of fresh and sincere human expression -- that's my ideal photograph. I marvel at photographic fine art and stand in awe of landscape and nature shots, but my favorite thing is the close up, candid shots of human emotion. Joy, sorrow, love, hate, peace, tension, fear, terror, meditative, contemplative. I want to take pictures of people involved in all manner of activities that captures the exact emotion that consumes the subject at that point in time. My daughters learning to ride a bike, performing on stage, interacting with each other or their friends, celebrating the scoring of a goal or mad because it's bed time. Then, I want to capture pictures of the public in general involved with these kind of emotions, too.

 

OK. Lenses.

 

No such thing as a bad lens. Really. As David often says, “Horses for Courses.”

 

I love your way of approaching this subject. Instead of beginning with the photographic subject, begin with the photographer! -- I need to firmly define what is it I am after and then work from there. I guess I know what I want but I hadn't really verbalized it until you asked me to do so.

 

Here’s a real-life example. My grandson was born a year ago, and I had the blessing of being in the room with my son and daughter-in-law as soon as she was settled and little “Everett” brought to her. Here’s an image typical of the crowded, “medical junk,” bad fluorescent light, etc. found in a maternity room:

 

 

 

And here is what I did to get a portrait of my new grandson in the midst of all that “stuff” that seemed distracting to me. You’ll notice that I kept both! The first is “where we were and what was happening.” Fine for context. The second, well, that’s “my vision” of my grandson at 45 minutes old!

 

 

OK, soapbox stowed for today.

 

Because I am at work, I cannot see pictures on the BMWST.COM forum. I guess the filter here weeds them out, so I won't be able to see these shots until I get home tonight. I am sure they are priceless pictures of your precious grandson.

 

Thanks Scott! Thanks for breaking out the soapbox. I am honored by your time, attention, and wisdom

[George Brown]

Sorry George, I disagree..

 

With what Tim: my statement that this is a good thread or, the camera/lens I'm thinking about? TIA

[John Ranalletta]

Wow, that 7D is sweet!

 

But what's that thing perched on top of it?

 

A Samson state-of-the-art recording device complete with an onboard reference speaker, 4-channel high resolution audio recording and variable recording pattern capability

 

 

[smiller]

That's a Zoom H4n and I've just been reading about it. Internal mics plus two additional mini/XLR inputs, 4-channel multitrack internal mixdown capability, a recording studio in your hand. Prosumer-ish but still pretty impressive for the $300 street price. And that includes Cubase LE software.

[beemerman2k]

OK, what a busy weekend it's been! I finally have a few minutes on the computer to post some of my favorite shots.

 

This first picture was taken at the lake last summer. We had a blast that day. Pictured are 2 of my daughters best friends, along with my 3 girls: Kendra in the rear (far right, of course), little Emma and Coretta in front

 

 

This is a favorite portrait of Kendra (I am waist deep in the lake as I took this shot):

 

 

Here's Coretta and a good friend of hers fooling around between soccer games:

 

 

Here's a couple of shots I took at my girls school Halloween party last month. Indoors things get major frustrating as I have to kick the camera up to ISO 1600 and noise kinda gets out of control. These shots may have been taken at ISO 800 or 1000.

 

I thought this little girl was sooo cute I had to take her picture:

 

 

Here's Coretta's friend, Sophie, in her 60's hippy costume:

 

 

Here's Emma trying on some fangs she won in a contest:

 

 

And I don't know who this woman is, but I loved her costume so I helped myself to a shot:

 

 

OK, now let's go outdoors. This was a big fall for Emma as she learned to ride her bike all by herself. Here she is a couple of weekends ago feeling quite proud of her accomplishment (here's a picture that might be "wrong" in so many ways, but I love the shot nonetheless as it captures the pride Emma is feeling at this moment):

 

 

See how she concentrates while riding (I got into good shape running along side her taking pictures):

 

 

And here she is with her sister, Coretta, after a great ride the two of them went on (Emma's first ride without Daddy trotting by her side, they went about a mile together):

 

 

OK, that's a taste of the kind of pictures I take. Given my distaste for post processing, these are how they appeared straight out of the camera.

 

Oh, here's a good one. Coretta was taking pictures of Emma petting a dog. I told Coretta to get closer and "fill the frame". So here's the shot she took, which is among my favorites and certainly better than any I have done to date!

 

 

 

Scott, this was a fantastic exercise. Thanks for suggesting it. I now have a better feel for the type of pictures I like -- mostly candid shots, close up (I know many of these pictures could stand to be cropped somewhat), and properly exposed. This last picture of Emma with the dog is somewhat overexposed as the detail in the dogs fur is washed out.

 

OK, so now I'm going to filter through the countless basketball, soccer, ballet and gymnastic photos I have. Here's where the real lessons need to be learned, and some heartbreaking mis-takes as well.

[David]

You've got some good pictures there. Scott will give you some good feedback, but I can't resist picking up on the theme that you hate post-processing. You'll find, though, that you can keep being a photographer by "seeing" things differently without violating the spirit of the exercise. Here's one example: the before and after of Kendra:

 

 

 

What I did was bring the red down, the blue/green up, adjust the mid- and high-contrast to make those water drops pop, and crop it differently. This image is also beautiful if you strip all the color out so that it's a black and white and then make it a duo-tone with a warm gray.

[beemerman2k]

Wow, that's a huge difference. OK, I'll have to adjust my attitude concerning post processing.

 

But here's my eternal question: why can't the camera just capture this in the first place?! Look at the rich color of Kendra's skin in your post processed image. Why can't I just get that in the first place?

[David]

The more sophisticated cameras have multiple measurement places (up to 30, in some cases), which are then merged together in a split second to suggest a metering result. Unfortunately, they don't get black or white very well.

 

When you see that possibility in the shot you're about to take, you need to step in and tell the camera to under- or over-expose the subject. In this case, the sensor saw the black skin and thought it needed more light. So it over-exposed her skin and washed it out.

 

You just have to take the moment back and correct it. I still use "gray cards" to force a specific white balance when I know it's going to happen shot after shot:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gray_card

 

You don't really need to know or understand any of that. Just recognize it in the shot afterwards and step in to fix it in post-processing.

[David]

If you want an easy practice exercise, take the Sophie and Emma pictures at the party and just mess with the "color balance" setting. You can instantly see that these were not taken with a flash, but rather indoors under a tungsten light. That gives them a yellow hue. You'll see how much better they look with just that one correction.

[Couchrocket]

Wow, that's a huge difference. OK, I'll have to adjust my attitude concerning post processing.

 

But here's my eternal question: why can't the camera just capture this in the first place?! Look at the rich color of Kendra's skin in your post processed image. Why can't I just get that in the first place?

 

James,

 

It is like the suspension on motorcycles. The camera is manufactured to render an "average situation" - just like bike suspension is setup stock for the "average rider."

 

To achieve the maximum potential one needs to fine tune to your specifics. And that is without regard for the creative control that PP brings to the table. Vision is not “literal” no matter how much we would like to think so, and photography (film or digital) is always subjective and never “really” objective.

 

I’ll be gone for the next few days, photographing at Pt. Lobos up on the CA coast, but I wanted to jump on here to tell you that you have a good eye, and what seems equally important for the kind of work you like, your photos show that you have rapport with your subjects. That’s not easy to develop if it doesn’t come somewhat naturally, and you seem to have it in abundance. That’s a real gift.

 

Some of your images are really priceless and “fine” IMO. As David has said, a little investment in learning to PP and shoot in RAW would pay HUGE dividends in already nice work.

 

I’m glad you found my exercise worth doing. It is a never-ending process that continually refines your seeing.

 

More later when I get back. Nice work!

 

Scott

 

[beemerman2k]

Wow. OK, so I am only learning at most, half the story of digital photography, apparently.

 

I make a lot of mistakes when I take pictures. One of my most flagrant errors is in not being aware of the camera settings. To photograph the faces of black people, I often have to up the exposure compensation by +3, +7, and sometimes, +1 exposure value. Then I forget that I have done that and photograph a white person's face and over expose it. That's what happened in Sophie's case; I had forgotten that the exposure value was raised and therefore her picture didn't come out as well defined as I would have liked. In fact, forgetting that I made a custom setting on the camera is my most flagrant offense in taking pictures. Outdoors in daylight I usually don't have to mess with exposure compensation, but indoors I do. Then I'll go outdoors with a + setting on my exposure value and ruin even the faces of my black daughters!

 

OK, so post processing can potentially save pictures that I have ruined with my forgetfulness.

 

You captured Kendra's true complexion perfectly! I am stunned.

[beemerman2k]

Wow, thanks guys.

 

I think I am so amazingly blessed in that I have 3 of the most beautiful girls on the planet as my daughters. Really. After posting these pictures up, I came close to flat out tears. Why should God be so nice to me that He gave me such great girls?! (and this coming from an atheist! -- or certainly an agnostic).

 

Aside from mastering post processing, which David so blatantly illustrated its worth to my work, I need to learn to be like David in photographing people who are not my daughters! Major challenge that is to me. I don't know how I'll get there.

 

Yes, Scott, that was well worth my while. I have resolved that from now on, at the end of a day's shooting, I will create a folder of my top 10 pictures of that particular session. This way I can post them to this site, and others, for feedback.

 

I do have Adobe Photoshop Elements 7.0 on my computer. I guess it's high time I learn what this product can do for me

[George Brown]

My father, who died in 1980, was an accomplished amateur photographer shooting mostly black and white. Even though he shot a lot of Kodachrome in the last 20 years of his life, he continued to shoot B&W because he could control the processing. He used to say, "you take the picture with the camera and make the photograph in the darkroom."

[Jerry Johnston]

I envy you - you look like you have a beautiful family and relationship. It makes me happy to see families like yours.

[Matts_12GS]

He used to say, "you take the picture with the camera and make the photograph in the darkroom."

 

Knifemaker and I had that exact conversation yesterday.