How can I create a grayscale with color highlighting effect in Lightroom?

Question

Highlighting certain area with color, leaving the rest grayscaled — what is the name of this effect in photography?

What is the most precise way to achieve this effect in Lightroom?

Answer

I'm surprised at all the incorrect answers to this! The technique of converting part of a photo to B&W is known as selective colour (the resulting image is sometimes referred to as a cut-out). There are two ways of doing it in Lightroom (v2 onwards) depending on the effect you're trying to achieve. They're both very easy to use. I'll demonstrate using this as an example image:

Example image:

Method 1: Leave a specific area in colour

This is done using the Adjustment Brush.

1. Switch to the Develop module.
2. Select the Adjustment Brush (right-hand panel, in the little tool strip right beneath the histogram).
3. Ensure all the sliders are at their default (middle) position, then slide Saturation right down to -100.
4. Choose an appropriate brush size, feather and flow and disable the Auto Mask feature.
5. Simply paint in the grey areas.

Result:

Convert to B&W but leave certain colour(s) in colour

This is done using the Hue/Saturation/Luminance (HSL) controls.

1. Again in develop module, open the HSL / Color / B&W pane in the right-hand panel.
2. In the top strip, click Saturation.
3. Using either the sliders or the drag control (the little circle in the top left of that pane), desaturate the picture colour by colour. I've desaturated everything except reds and yellows.

Result:

I agree that Photoshop might produce better results: simply desaturating isn't always the best way to convert to B&W, and Photoshop gives you much finer-grained control over the process. But you asked about Lightroom and it's definitely possible. Both of the above examples took a few seconds each: with a bit more care and attention they could both be improved.

Check more discussion of this question.

What filter should I use to avoid overly-whitened daylight images?

Question

What filter should I use to avoid whitend images caused by intense daylight? At the moment I am only using an UV Filter, but it doesn't solve the whole problem.

I am newbie in photography, and I've recently bought a Nikon DSLR.

Answer

Do you mean over-exposed? If so, use +/- button. That is Exposure-Compensation and lets you make things darker by going negative.

A UV filter does nothing for brightness, usually makes things worst only. Take off and replace with polarizer that darkens the sky (sometimes, if not cloudy).

Check more discussion of this question.

Why do bright red flowers end up without details?

Question

With our DSLR, indoor flowers come out detailed. Outdoor violet and blue flowers are detailed, too.

But outdoor bright red flowers give us problems. They come out as a single flat detail-less spot. Sometimes bright yellow flowers do this too.

Why? What we are doing wrong? Is it a camera defect?

In some of our pictures of red flowers, you can see small white reflections on the petals, but on other shots, the whole red flower appears flat, as one blob of same-color pixels, lifeless and volume-less. It is disturbing.

I am not asking how to to photoshop this image. The question is how to shoot correctly in the first place.

Condition: outdoor, sunlight, Nikon D5000, unresized, unprocessed jpeg.

Answer

So the other posts are correct in that the red channel is being blown, but what you really want to know is how to overcome the issue within the camera without post editing. The Nikon D5000 has the Picture Control System giving users the ability to customize image capture preferences. Six settings are available — Standard, Neutral, Vivid, Monochrome, Portrait, and Landscape, along with the ability to create up to nine custom Picture Control settings.

I shoot with a Nikon D300 and have EXACTLY the same problem as yourself. Normally I have my picture control set to Vivid as I shoot a lot of nature, landscape and macro so it's nice to have the colours punch through. However whenever I am then shooting red flowers I change the control to either Standard or Neutral so the red is not blown.

Personally I shoot all my images in RAW (NEF) format and this allows me to change the Picture Control in post (using Nikon's NX2 software) which means I can choose the end result utilizing a larger screen and also I don't have to change the camera configuration for a single image while out in the field.

There are additional Picture Control setups that you can download at http://nikonimglib.com/opc/ but I don not know if these are compatible with the D5000, they may be as it is possible to add up to nine custom Picture Controls.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is Canon T2i and kit lens good for shooting (2D) artwork?

Question

What are your thoughts and experience with shooting two-dimensional artwork with a Canon T2i, and will the standard lens be OK for this purpose? Or should I upgrade to the zoom lens package to save with having to move the camera distance all the time?

Short of a proper large format image scanning system I've heard the Canon EOS 5D Mark II with its 22mp imaging is the next-best photo option to capture Giclée quality prints. But that camera is out of my budget and renting one for just a week in my location will cost as much as this T2i!

so I'm wondering your thought on using this T2i for top quality reproductions? This is for hundreds of artworks, mostly prints up to 24"x30", and oil paintings on canvas and board up to 30"x40". So no super large works, but large enough..

The other matter is that really we don't plan to make Giclée prints. We just really need to archive a lifetime's worth of works at the highest feasible quality, and do so as economically as possible. If they may be used to make reproductions too, great. It's a fine line between the budget and getting adequate quality.

Taking aside the fact that proper glicee prints need to be compared and color matched to the original, etc. I realize that we'll not be able to quite get the quality on every image that would be ideal. Not to mention issues with lighting, tripod/camera table set up, etc. But if the eventual setup can do a consistent and adequate job, that should suffice. At least it should be many times better than the standard digicam shots we have now!

Also if you have any thoughts or links that you recomend on photographing artwork please let me know. The camera is just one part of the set-up

Answer

That is a good camera but you really should get a macro lens. This will give you two advantages
1. a flat field with minimal distortion (important for photographing documents)
2. high resolution to get good quality images.

Other important issues
1. Use a good, sturdy tripod.
2. Pay a lot of attention to lighting, this may be your most important issue.
3. Good colour calibration is vital, so shoot in RAW and tweak your RAW conversion profile.

While I like Matt Grum's suggestion to make panoramic reproductions, I suspect it will be far too time consuming if you must photograph hundreds of artwork.

Check more discussion of this question.

(How) should I start with film photography?

Question

I've been toying with the thought of starting analog (film) photography for a while. Buying a film SLR and the equipment to develop and print the photos doesn't seem to be too expensive.

Now my question: Does it make sense to do this? Did anyone of you do this, too?

I don't really have a clue about the film equipment, as well as the development and printing processes. So if you have any concrete tips or know any tutorials that could help me, please post them!

Answer

It depends on what you are after from the experience. Are you playing with it just to see what wacko images you can get that are 'different' or 'alternate' to digital? In other words, are you exploring film like you would a Holga, a pinhole, or a lensbaby? then don't bother reading on. If, on the other hand, you are exploring film because you want to understand the history of photographic processes, or you want a deeper understanding of how photons end up making images, then this answer might interest you.

To me, it only makes sense to even start doing film photography today (outside of simple curiosity) if you plan on going all the way: hand developing and printing. Else, it doesn't seem anywhere close to the bother. I'd actually advocate for the truly strong of stomach to go rent a 4x5 view camera and shoot a box of film and tray-develop it (maybe don't do this until you have done some 35mm or 120 film first).

35mm film is just about the worst of all worlds these days as far as actually doing real photographs, just about the only reason to do 35mm film is for the learning experience of how film behaves and what the photochemical process do. For this didactic reason, there's a lot you can learn from film. But I'd argue that you won't get it by just shooting the roll and sending it out--you gotta hand develop. Again, with 35mm, it doesn't seem at all worth it just to shoot a roll and send it out. The processing that 99.5% of all labs are going to do to that film is like D-76 or some other crappy film dev. That's just going to give you crappy film results so what would you learn from that? Then they will print it on some crappy paper and you won't get any understanding of the printing process either (else they send back scanned neg files). Doesn't make any sense to me--nowhere worth the hassle.

Now, if you take the time to learn what the old masters did (i.e. developing in ABC pyro film developer and printing on something like Elite Fine Art or better yet to hand-coated platinum), THEN you are making it worth your while. You get to experience the mercurial and arcane world of film at it's finest. This is NOT easy, but you actually get something for your troubles.

So, in short, I'm suggesting that if you are interested in film photography, that you go all the way.If you are on a monastic quest to 'get' film photography so you can become an overall better photographer or simply have a fuller appreciation for the medium, I'd suggest the following progression. Call it a auto-didactic degree curriculum in old skool photochemical techniques. Note, I'd suggest NOT stopping at 101 if you bother starting. The really good stuff comes at 400. You can do the 400 level before the 300. If you complete the Ph.D. I'll send a picture to you of myself genuflecting to your greatness.

Film 101 level course:

1. get a cheap 35mm (borrow or buy) camera.

2. shoot a few rolls of film & develop in a GOOD developer. See Adams "The Negative" or other zone system texts for descriptions of good film devs. D-76 is basically crap. don't even bother.

3. Print on some high quality paper. I don't even know what's available these days. Back in the dark ages, I used Kodak Elite Fine Art. Prob doesn't exist any more. If you can, buy a film/print darkroom setup on ebay. super cheap. else use college facility if available. Note: don't even bother with the cheap stuff. Doesn't make sense. You are doing this course for the learning, not because it's practical. Get full value out of your investment: buy the best softgoods, rent the best film equipment.

Film 300:

1. Rent/borrow a Hasselblad or comparable 120 roll film camera. There are some truly sweet 120 film cameras out there. repeat step 2 and 3. 120 film cameras are a world unto themselves, deserving contemplation.

Film 400:

1. Rent/borrow a 4x5 view camera kit. Get a good one if you can. using a 4x5 is a truly landmark experience for photographers. You will learn SO much about photography by using a view camera.

2. shoot a 25 sheet box of 4x5 film. repeat 2 and 3.

Masters Level:

1. learn an alternate/historic photographic printing process. Gum or Platinum/Palladium is a great place to start. Palladium is probably the best in terms of ease of learning and expense. contact print one of your 4x5 negs.

Ph.D/fellowship:

1. Do a wet plate collodian negative and print it with photogravure. If you do this, YOU ARE A GOD.

Upon graduation, I fully expect you to have gained photographic insights comparable with forms of mysticism (trips to Mecca, fasts, prayer vigils, month long meditations). You will also then have to resist the urge to make love to your digital camera, given your newly found respect for how freaking easy it is to use. Moreover, when you look at the stunning images of the old film masters, you will have a much better appreciation of how skilled and patient they were. Note that many incredible images were done with what I'm calling a Ph.D. level of knowledge.

Oh, and if you get around to shooting a 4x5, then look at Mary Ellen Mark's photography... you might notice the tell-tale signs of 4x5 negatives shot in the the most intimate of locales (bathrooms, bedrooms, etc). Getting images AT ALL with a 4x5 takes skill... using a 4x5 as a documentary camera to capture the decisive moment requires.... um. . . whatever the word is that denotes 'something more than skill obtainable by a human'. You may not be the uber-photographer of your dreams by completing this course, but you WILL have a much better appreciation of those who are.

Check more discussion of this question.

How can I simulate a long exposure photo using a set of shorter exposure photos?

Question

I'm shooting towards the sky to capture the stars. The exposure time is 15 seconds, so I can see the stars still, without a trace. These photos are taken continuously one after the other, because I want to make a time-lapse video showing the "movement" of the sky (it is the earth that moves actually).

For that, everything's fine. But I'd also like to do one other thing. If instead of taking all those photos, I would take just one with a exposure time that equals the sums of all those photos photos together (15 sec times the quantity of photos), I would see the trace the stars left in the sky.

Is there anyway to "create" that photo, from all the "short" exposition ones?

Answer

You can do it with a script for The GIMP. I did it a couple years ago, and got pretty good results. Remember to keep the time between exposures as short as possible, otherwise you will get visible gaps in the trails. That's why it's best to take a single dark frame at the end, and subtract that frame from the result (I had intended to incorporate that into the script, but never got around to it).

My notes for the script:

Combined with renaming the first to base.JPG, "gimp -b -" with
(let* ((filelist (cadr (file-glob "IMG*.JPG" 1)))
      (img (car (gimp-file-load RUN-NONINTERACTIVE "base.JPG" "base.JPG"))))
  (while (not (null? filelist))
    (let* ((filename (car filelist))  (layer (car (gimp-file-load-layer RUN-NONINTERACTIVE img filename)))
  )
      (gimp-image-add-layer img layer 0)
      (gimp-layer-set-mode layer LIGHTEN-ONLY-MODE)
      (gimp-image-merge-visible-layers img CLIP-TO-IMAGE)
      )
    (set! filelist (cdr filelist))
    )
  (gimp-file-save RUN-NONINTERACTIVE img (car (gimp-image-flatten img)) "test2.jpg" "test2.jpg")
)

For subtracting the dark frame, my notes say, "I opened this as a layer on the composite image (the result of my gimp script), and set the dark layer's mode to Difference."

Check more discussion of this question.

Can I use aperture ring of Pentax FA lens in aperture priority mode?

Question

I'm considering getting an FA Limited lens for my Pentax DSLR. The FA series has an aperture ring with an "A" setting for control by camera bodies that support it.

Can I instead use the aperture ring to set the actual aperture value in Av (aperture priority mode), letting the camera pick a shutter speed, or am I limited to the "A" aperture and have to use the thumb dials on the body to control aperture? I don't want to go full-manual mode.

Answer

To use aperture priority on Pentax dSLR with FA lens, you have to leave the aperture ring to "A" and select the aperture on body.

With aperture ring in A mode, the FA lens will behave just like a DA lens. You can use Av mode and set aperture on the body, shutter time will be calculated according to automatically measured exposure.

With aperture ring set on a specific aperture, the body does not know what you have set it to and would not be able to select shutter speed. By default, shutter will not work. You can enable using aperture ring in Custom Settings, but that will just enable using shutter - the lens will be used wide open regardless of the setting on aperture ring.

That's where the "crippled" part of the "crippled KAF2" mount on Pentax dSLR-s shows up - they do not have the mechanical linkage to read aperture settings from an aperture ring.

Check more discussion of this question.

Can I use old Pentax lenses on newer Pentax DSLRs?

Question

Can I use old Pentax lenses from the film days on the newer Pentax DSLRs?

Are there any caveats or exceptions? Are adapters or modifications needed?

Answer

Yes, all Pentax DSLRs accept all K-mount lenses. This includes autofocusing (if applicable), focus confirmation, metering, IS, etc.

The oldest two series, K and M series (database), do not have aperture contacts, and thus do not work with Av and Tv mode. Instead, you'll have to use M mode, but you will get meter readings. It can also suggest a shutter speed if you push the +/- or green button (depending on camera model and settings). Metering on these digital SLRs tends to be noticeably more inconsistent than on on the film SLRs they were designed for. These two series do not get matrix metering, just center-weighted and spot, but do get focus-trap.

There is a rare breed of K-mount that Ricoh used, called "KR" mount. They have an extra pin which will get stuck if it is not removed.

You can also get a M42-PK adapter and use the endless supply of great cheap screwmount lenses available at ebay, pawnshops, etc. They will have focus confirmation, IS, center/spot metering, and can actually use Av mode as they will stop down with the aperture ring.

Check more discussion of this question.

What are neutral density filters and how do I use them to create long exposures in daylight?

Question

I've seen a few related posts on the site but nothing specifically on this point:

I'd like to be able to take long exposure photos during daylight (like the examples in this Flickr group). I'm told that you can do this by using a neutral density filter. So my question is: what is a neutral density filter exactly, and how is it used to achieve that smooth long exposure effect?

Answer

A Neutral Density (ND) filter is a filter that reduces the amount of light captured by the camera evenly across the visible spectrum. As such, it looks grey to black (depending on the filtration power) and does not cast color on the received image (like blue or yellow, e.g., filters will do).

When using a ND filter, there is a need to compensate for the reduction in light by using longer exposures (or higher ISO, but it usually defies the intention of ND filtration). This way, one can capture long-exposure images that are not possible w/o the filter as the camera (set to its lowest ISO and possibly smallest acceptable aperture) is at its slowest speed for a good exposure.

Examples for such situation is when shooting waterfalls in a fairly lit location. Then, the speed for correct exposure is not slow enough to create the required streaming water effect. Using a ND filter, one can reach slower speeds, as if the scene lighting was dimmer.

Note that a uniform ND filter does not change the Dynamic Range of the scene, as the bright areas get darker in the same amount as the dark areas.

Another type of ND filters is the graduate ND filters. These filters usually attenuate the light only at one half of the frame and gradually get clearer on the second half. These filters are used when shooting landscapes, where the sky is much more bright than the scenery and using good exposure for the ground will overexpose the sky. A graduate ND filter lets one reduce the brightness of the sky and get it captured nicely with the ground.

ND filters are marked in multiplies or stops. An 8X ND filter is similar to ND3. Both cut 3 stops of the light. If the camera's meter tells that 1/500 sec is required for the given aperture, then using a ND3 filter will allow an exposure of 1/64 sec with similar outcome.

There are some (expensive) variable ND filters. These are made from two polarizers, where the front element rotates and thus let you set the amount of light being cut (up to virtually no light passing through).

The image below, from Wikipedia, shows the effect of an ND filter:

Check more discussion of this question.

Can you use the built-in flash in a Canon EOS 450D with a hot shoe GPS geo-tagger?

Question

As far as I can see, the answer is no, the flash cannot open if anything, is plugged on the hot shoe of a Canon EOS 450D:

Can anyone confirm that I wouldn't be able to use something like the Jobo photoGPS and the flash at the same time?

Answer

There is a sensor in the hotshoe to detect a flashgun; this inhibits the pop-up flash from coming up (or even firing, even if you trick it). You might be able to chip off the relevant part of the slide so the camera doesn't detect the hotshoe flash, but I wouldn't personally recommend it.

Check more discussion of this question.

How do I create a spot light effect in Lightroom?

Question

Having an effect of round spot light on the picture, so in the middle it's lighter and close to corners darker — what is the name of this effect in photography?

What is the technique for this in Lightroom?

Answer

Vignetting - In the Develop module if you expand the Effects section, you will see what they call the Post-Crop Vignetting tool. Adjust the sliders as you see fit.

Check more discussion of this question.

Are there disadvantages to a prosumer camera for a beginner, aside from cost?

Question

I basically decided on a whim (from reading this site, talking to some friends, and always admiring great photos) that I want to get into photography.

Are there disadvantages to starting out with a prosumer camera like the Nikon D7000? I know stuff will be more expensive, but will there also be greater frustration or complexity?

(I am the kind of person who tries to find reasons to justify the extra cost even when I know deep down that it's not necessary...)

Answer

On the contrary, I think these cameras are better for beginners, if your intention is really to begin — that is, to start from here and (as you say) get into photography.

The lower-priced entry-level cameras focus on fully-automatic modes, and emphasize ways of making the camera work without any thought from you. The biggest example is scene modes, which basically say "You want to take a picture of that? No problem! Turn the camera to that mode, and I'll handle the rest." And then what they do is a black box operation, from which it's hard to learn.

On the other hand, the complexity in higher-end cameras is there to make it easier for you to tell the camera what to do. You get separate dials for aperture and shutter speed, and a quick way to set ISO. You get a top LCD screen so you can glance down to see settings without turning on the distracting, bright, badly-placed main rear LCD screen. You get an easily-accessible metering mode switch, so you can use the right metering mode for the situation. (On entry-level cameras, this is usually an option buried in the menu, making it a set-and-forget thing rather than something easily switched for every situation.) There will be more settings you can customize, and one or more "user modes" which you can define, rather than trusting the camera to guess.

And on top of all that, you get a more solidly-built camera, and a better viewfinder, and (depending on model) the ability fine-tune autofocus on a per-lens basis.

So, while it's certainly not necessary to get into photography, it's definitely nice. And there's some certain threshold features that, once you're used to, you probably would never dream of living without. (The dual control dials, for example.)

Check more discussion of this question.

How do I turn off lens correction in Lightroom 3?

Question

I'm trying to improve Lightroom performance on my Mac and have read that turning off Lens Correction can help the "Loading" times in the develop module.

I really don't care about lens correction and shoot "lomo", so how do I turn off this feature in Lightroom 3?

Answer

When in Develop, there is a Lens Correction panel. Within this panel you can turn profile lens correction on or off using the Enable Profile Corrections checkbox

Check more discussion of this question.

Do "body only" DSLR cameras come with a battery?

Question

I am a novice on photography and planning to gift a DSLR camera to someone - Do the cameras - that claim body only products - have battery included with them?.

Can anyone confirm if below product on amazon includes the battery and charger?.

http://www.amazon.com/Canon-T3i-Digital-Imaging-18-55mm/dp/tech-data/B004J3V90Y/ref=de_a_smtd

Thanks, Anna

Answer

All of the camera bodies being produced by major manufacturers (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus, etc) ship with a battery and charger. You don't need to purchase an additional battery or charger.

Check more discussion of this question.

What is aperture, and how does it affect my photographs?

Question

How does aperture affect my photographs?

Why should I care about the aperture with which a photo was taken?

Answer

The aperture affects not only the amount of time required to take a photo, but also the depth of field within it.

With a wide aperture (so a low number, like f/1.8) gives a shallow depth of field - sometimes less than a millimetre with a macro lens. Because a lot of light is reaching the sensor (be it film or digital), this allows for fast shutter speeds

With a narrow aperture (so a high number like f/22), the depth of field is much greater, which is useful for things like landscape photography - it will limit the amount of light reaching your sensor, so you will get slower shutter speeds, which makes a tripod handy.

Check more discussion of this question.

What should I look for when shopping for my first DSLR?

Question

I am thinking of buying a digital SLR camera. What things should I be looking for?

Answer

Things to look for when buying your first dslr:

• Price. Far from me to tell anyone how to spend their hard earned cash, but having an idea of what money you want to pay will help.

• Ergonomics. Does the body feel good in your hands? What about when you have your lens attached?

• What brand? I'm a fan of Canon. Nikon is equally awesome. There are other brands as well, but I recommend the big two: Canon and Nikon.

• Beginner/creative modes. Since this is your first camera, having modes that do some automation will ease you into using an SLR.

• Entry Level/ Prosumer Level body. If you have a sufficient budget, consider which would serve you better: Buying a more expensive body now, with features that you can grow with, or a less expensive body with fewer features, leaving you more cash more lenses. In terms of producing great images the chain of importance goes: Photographer >>> Lens > Camera Body.

My first dSLR was a Canon 20D, a prosumer body. I chose it because I have larger hands, and the 20D size and weight felt better (twss), and I wanted something I could grow with.

Check more discussion of this question.

Are third-party alternatives to the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 worth the price savings?

Question

Has anyone used the 3rd party 70-200 lenses?

Are you happy with the quality, or do you wish you had saved up for longer and got the Canon?

Answer

Personally I have a 70-200 2.8 IS. Yes it cost a lot, and yes it is heavy, but the results from it speak for themselves.

But having said that, you need to pick a lens that is going to meet your needs (i.e. what sort of photos you plan on taking with it). I have a friend who uses a 70-200 F4 (non-IS) and is very happy with the results. Likewise I know someone who has a Sigma Bigma (50-500) who produces good results.

One resource you may find useful is Fred Miranda Reviews which agregates the results from people submitting reviews about the lenses they own.

Check more discussion of this question.

Can a cheap DX battery damage my camera?

Question

I would like to purchase a spare battery for my new Canon EOS 550D\Rebel T2i for a trip abroad.

I've found this battery on DealExtreme. It costs 6.90$ (with shippment), a small fraction from the street price.

What are the chances this battery will damage my camera?

Answer

The chances are high. Nikon started putting holograms on their batteries so they would be recognized as originals because some fakes burst into flames after some use.

Most importantly, is why are you even considering this? You paid good money for a nice camera and you want to risk it by saving some money on a cheap battery? If the one you have is not enough, even one more will give you at least another 400-shots per charge unless you use the flash more than you should.

Check more discussion of this question.

Does rotating a photo count as a destructive editing?

Question

I usually rotate all my jpg photos (using Windows Photo Viewer) after removing them from my camera's card. Is this correct? Am I losing quality for rotating them? Should I just leave them as they are and later incorporate the rotation as another retouch step - at a post-processing software like, for instance, Lightroom?

Sometimes I see websites like DPreview.com showing their camera's sample photos not rotated, thus I thought rotating them would reduce (a lit bit) their quality. It it a fair assumption?

Answer

Whether rotation loses quality or not depends on software (and its version) used and image dimensions. Images that have width or height (measured in pixels) not divisible by 8, cannot be rotated in a lossless way.

As for Windows Photo Viewer, Matt Grum has already given a stellar answer to the more specific question. For other software, you could use the sample images in his answer and try the same experiment.

Check more discussion of this question.

What is the influence of the camera on the performance of a lens?

Question

Shouldn't a lens be good or bad independently of the camera it is used with?

After seeing these reviews at DxOMark I got confused. By changing the camera where the lenses are tested I get different scores. I'm not talking about DX vs FX, because for sure something must differ from a full-frame to a cropped frame. But a score changing from a D5000 to a D7000 to a D90... why?

What is the influence of the camera on the image quality and performance of a lens?

Answer

A lens always performs the same way on all cameras with the right mount. What changes is the output from the camera which is dependent on both the lens and the camera.

Think of the light coming through the lens and then passing into the camera. The lens is first in the chain and always does the same thing.

Then, the light reaches the sensor which samples the light. A higher resolution sensor will be more demanding on a lens. There is also often an anti-alias filter in front of the sensor itself. This blurs the incoming light to avoid moire problems but that also means a stronger anti-alias filter will reduce the performance of top-quality lenses. For this reason, medium format systems (and Leica's own) do not use such filters.

Check more discussion of this question.

How can a 18-55mm lens focus on objects beyond 55mm?

Question

I guess this is a total noob question, but doesn't 18-55mm mean that it can focus only up to 55mm?

Answer

There is a fairly simple explanation here: http://www.paragon-press.com/lens/lenchart.htm

To summarize from that site:

Simply put, the focal length of a lens is the distance from the lens to the sensor, when focused on a subject at infinity. To focus on something closer than infinity, the lens is moved farther away from the sensor.

Focal length and focus distance are two different things.

Focal length controls the viewing angle, essentially meaning how much of the scene the camera can see. A large focal length means the camera sees only a narrow view of the world, which makes faraway objects look bigger. A small focal length, on the other hand, means the camera can see a wide view of the world. Objects appear smaller because lots of things get squeezed into the picture.

Focus distance is controlled by moving the lens further away from the sensor, so that the light rays from a single point on an object nearby converge to form a point of light on the sensor. If a 55mm lens were 55mm from the sensor, only objects infinitely or very far away would be in focus. To bring a scene into focus, the lens must be moved away from the sensor until all the rays of light converge to form distinct points. This is why almost every lens can focus on distant objects, but macro lenses (which focus on very close objects) are more expensive.

For additional reading, check out: http://www.howstuffworks.com/camera.htm

Check more discussion of this question.

What should I consider when using DSLRs in cold weather?

Question

What temperatures can consumer-level DSLRs and lenses typically handle? Are there any precautions one should take too minimize potential problems (e.g. condensating water)? What about moving in and out of the cold multiple times a day?

Answer

A lot of dSLRs are rated to 0 degrees celsius or 32 faranheit, though some more pro ones are rated to lower temperatures. Most of this is about the battery life, it will suffer in the cold.

However, in general, condensation is going to be your enemy when moving from cold back into warmth, so the best way to handle that is to put the camera and lens into a plastic bag and seal it before going inside and then leaving it in there until the camera comes up to temperature.

Anyways, some good tips can be found here: Protecting your camera in winter so go outside and shoot!

Check more discussion of this question.

What does a hexagonal sun tell us about the camera lens/sensor?

Question

In this picture, we see that the sun comes out as a hexagon. I am sure it is not arbitrary. What does the hexagon tell us about the instrument that captured the image?

Answer

It tells us that the aperture contains either three or six blades and that where these blades meet there is a corner which results in Fraunhofer diffraction.

It also tells us that the lens was stopped down, as if it were wide open there would be no corners to cause diffraction, regardless of the number of aperture blades.

Incidentally the number of (distinct) points to the star is equal to double the total number of unique orientations* in the sides of the aperture shape i.e. three blades would be six points, six blades would also be six points as a hexagon has only three unique orientations in its sides.

* a hexagonal aperture has six sides but only three unique orientations as there are three pairs of parallel sides.

Check more discussion of this question.

What are good online or DVD tutorials for my new DSLR?

Question

I recently purchased Nikon D7000 and would like to learn how to use it properly and want to learn photography using it. Can anyone suggest good online tutorials which I can look at or any DVDs which I can purchase?

Answer

Try out this website from Nikon. It contains an interactive digital tutorial on how to use the D7000. It should be helpful in learning about your new camera.

Nikon D7000 Digital Tutorial

Check more discussion of this question.

Why do some cameras have a blue lens shown in their photographs?

Question

For example, from this Google search

the middle camera is way more blue in color than the others.

What is the reason behind this? Do these cameras have some special type of glass that results in blue color or is it something else?

Answer

The difference is likely due to different lighting setups. The two cameras on the sides seems to be photographed in one setup, and the middle camera in a different setup.

The camera houses will reflect the light from the lamps that are set up to light up the camera, while the glass in the lens will reflect light that comes from the surrounding room. The color tint in the lens is the difference in light temperature between the product shoot setup and the surronding room.

The setup for the cameras on the sides would have a colder light for the setup, for example flashes, and a warmer light in the surrounding room, for example regular lightbulbs. The setup for the camera in the middle would have a warmer light for the setup, pretty much any kind of lamp, and a colder light in the surrounding room, like flourescent light.

As the white balance for the photos are adjusted to the light of the product shoot setup, the difference in lighting only shows up in the reflection in the lens.

Edit:

I adjusted the white balance to roughly make the reflected light in the lenses neutral, so that you can see the difference between the surrounding light and the setup light:

Check more discussion of this question.

Why are those green spots on my photo?

Question

Took a pic with my 35mm Nikon lens last night, and got this light artifact. Is this something normal? Reflection? Is it dirt on my lens? How do I prevent this from happening? I think it only happened when there is backlighting.

UPDATE: new screenshot.

Answer

Looks like lens flare to me. Odds are there's a similarly-shaped pattern of lights in front of the camera (possibly behind/above the subject since you noted backlighting) and what you're seeing is a result of those lights being bounced around inside the lens. update: Now that you've posted an updated photo, one can see the chandelier which is being reflected either by the lens itself or possibly by a filter on the lens.

For more information, see the lengthy answers to What causes lens flare?

Check more discussion of this question.

Is 2 megapixels enough for 4x6 prints?

Question

My compact camera has a burst mode, which shoots 10 fps at 2 megapixels.

I plan to use it at an upcoming company sporting event (basketball and tennis, outdoors) and plan to post memorable moments at our company bulletin board and boardroom. That is, print the photos uncropped at 4x6 inches. I have a class 10 SD card.

Do I need (to shop for) a "better" camera?

Answer

As a rough rule of thumb, photos tend to be printed at a maximum of 300 dots per inch (dpi), but anywhere from around 240dpi will produce a print that looks sharp when viewed closely. 300dpi means that every 1" × 1" square of print is actually made up of a grid of tiny dots, 300 dots along each side (and therefore 90,000 dots in total).

A digital camera's sensor also captures a grid of dots. The dots are known as pixels and 1 megapixel = 1,000,000 pixels.

We now have all we need to do a simple bit of maths. :)

A 6x4" print at an optimum resolution of 300dpi will be made up of (6 × 300) × (4 × 300) = 2,160,000 dots: just a touch over 2 megapixels. However, to print at a perfectly acceptable 240dpi we only need (6 × 240) × (4 × 240) = 1,382,400 pixels.

Result: a 2mp camera should produce great 6×4" prints!

Check more discussion of this question.

Do super-super-lightweight tripods exist?

Question

Are there are any "ultra-portable" tripods out there? I'd like to find one for backpacking that weighs 500 grams or less, but none seem to exist... there are tabletop tripods that weigh considerably less, and the full-size tripods that seem to bottom out around 1000g. But nothing in between?

I'm happy to sit down while photographing, but I'd like to make photos without needing a rock or log to put a tabletop tripod on, or a tree to strap one to.

In the spirit of a tripod is better than no tripod, I'd give up a lot. But I have not been able to find a product like this.

I would also be interested in directions for building one.

Clarifications

• The 500g budget includes a complete tripod: both legs and head.
• The goal is to support about 1.5kg (e.g., D90 + 18-200).
• The 500g budget is for additional weight above and beyond what I'm already carrying. So, if an item I'm already carrying on a backpack can be repurposed or a new item substituted, only the net mass increase counts against the budget.

Answer

An alternative tripod that may serve your needs is the TrekPod. It might be the closest thing you are going to get from a weight perspective, but it has an interesting capability that may make its weight a moot point. The TrekPod XL weighs 630g (including the ball head), and is a cross between a tripod and a monopod. It can get up to 62" in height, but breaks down very small so it can easily be packed away. The real kicker: it can also double as a hiking staff! As a hiking staff, it wouldn't need to be something you have to stick in your pack, so the weight might not matter.

I chose the Gitzo over this since I needed a full tripod with the flexibility that a full set of telescopic legs offered. The TrekPod is probably the lightest full-height tripod I've ever encountered, though. Its 130g over your limit...but maybe it will still work.

Check more discussion of this question.

How does one best deal with shaded faces in bright sunlight?

Question

When photographing people in bright sunlight, parts of faces are often shaded by hats or by their own contours. This creates highly-contrasted faces, and either a very bright background or very dark faces.

Using flash doesn't always help, especially when photographing a large group (~10 people) from a little distance.

What's your solution for this common situation?

Answer

For me, I have reflectors which can be positioned (sometimes with help) so as to fill in the light on the subjects. There are some reasonable 5-in-1 options out there, I have a 43" version of one of them and it works very well, folding up to a pretty small package and giving lots of options for cooling or warming the light as needed.

If you don't have reflectors, but do have larger, bright, surfaces you use, then that too is an option. What it really boils down to is getting some of generally available light redirected to the place you want it and, for that, many reasonably reflective items will help a great deal if sufficiently large. Heck, it can even by some bristol board or shiny wrapping paper, I've done both.

Anyways, those are what I do and, to be honest, I prefer that sort of light over a flash anyways. Fill flash can harsh, especially when it is on camera, and so I prefer to avoid it.

Check more discussion of this question.

Super-super-lightweight tripods: Do they exist?

Question

Are there are any "ultra-portable" tripods out there? I'd like to find one for backpacking that weighs 500 grams or less, but none seem to exist... there are tabletop tripods that weigh considerably less, and the full-size tripods that seem to bottom out around 1000g. But nothing in between?

I'm happy to sit down while photographing, but I'd like to make photos without needing a rock or log to put a tabletop tripod on, or a tree to strap one to.

In the spirit of a tripod is better than no tripod, I'd give up a lot. But I have not been able to find a product like this.

I would also be interested in directions for building one.

Clarifications

• The 500g budget includes a complete tripod: both legs and head.
• The goal is to support about 1.5kg (e.g., D90 + 18-200).
• The 500g budget is for additional weight above and beyond what I'm already carrying. So, if an item I'm already carrying on a backpack can be repurposed or a new item substituted, only the net mass increase counts against the budget.

Answer

An alternative tripod that may serve your needs is the TrekPod. It might be the closest thing you are going to get from a weight perspective, but it has an interesting capability that may make its weight a moot point. The TrekPod XL weighs 630g (including the ball head), and is a cross between a tripod and a monopod. It can get up to 62" in height, but breaks down very small so it can easily be packed away. The real kicker: it can also double as a hiking staff! As a hiking staff, it wouldn't need to be something you have to stick in your pack, so the weight might not matter.

I chose the Gitzo over this since I needed a full tripod with the flexibility that a full set of telescopic legs offered. The TrekPod is probably the lightest full-height tripod I've ever encountered, though. Its 130g over your limit...but maybe it will still work.

Check more discussion of this question.

What is this light artifact on my pic?

Question

Took a pic with my 35mm Nikon lens last night, and got this light artifact. Is this something normal? Reflection? Is it dirt on my lens? How do I prevent this from happening? I think it only happened when there is backlighting.

UPDATE: new screenshot.

Answer

Looks like lens flare to me. Odds are there's a similarly-shaped pattern of lights in front of the camera (possibly behind/above the subject since you noted backlighting) and what you're seeing is a result of those lights being bounced around inside the lens. update: Now that you've posted an updated photo, one can see the chandelier which is being reflected either by the lens itself or possibly by a filter on the lens.

For more information, see the lengthy answers to What causes lens flare?

Check more discussion of this question.

Who covers Canon products in a similar vein to Thom Hogan's Nikon coverage?

Question

I'm looking to learn a bit about Canon's history, products and reviews and wondered if there were any reviewers that do work focused on Canon's (D)SLR products. The publications and web site of Thom Hogan are very nice for learning about the history, usage and informed speculation about future product directions. Can anyone suggest some authors in print or web that might be worth a look?

Answer

I think Bryan Carnathan's The Digital Picture comes closest

Check more discussion of this question.

What causes lens flare?

Question

I heard a couple of years ago that only certain types of lens caused flare to appear, something related with the material and/or quality of the lens. Is this true? Which material/quality caused flare? Thanks in advance.

Answer

Uncontrolled light causes lens flare. This can be light that's reflected from internal lens surfaces, or that's scattered by imperfections in the glass.

If the flare is badly controlled, it will produce the dramatic lens flare artifacts which you've probably seen. More controlled flare will be diffused over the entire image, reducing contrast but not producing other visible artifacts.

Flare can be controlled in several different ways. A simple way is just to prevent non-image light from hitting the front element in the first place. Avoid putting bright lights (the sun, for example) directly in the frame, and prevent out-of-frame light from shining onto the lens. This is what a lens hood does — or, simply shading with your hand, in a pinch.

If there is a bright light source (the sun, for example again) that you want to have in your photograph, that's not going to help. That's a reason wide angle lenses are more susceptible to flare (and for the same reason, a lens hood can't be as useful, as a deep one would block the actual image).

On almost all modern lenses, special optical coatings are applied to the lens to help control the stray light. These are made of various metallic and mineral compounds which alter the way the lens transmits light, and they're specially chosen to reduce the unwanted scattering of light. More expensive lenses use more expensive coatings, and more expensive optical elements which have less of a problem in the first place. Lenses also have internal baffles designed to reduce bouncing light.

Cheap filters often have cheap coatings, and since they're often more exposed than the front element was, they're more prone to catching stray light. That's why adding a UV filter for lens protection can reduce image quality.

So, to answer your question directly: yes, it's true. Flare is caused by stray light, not by lens materials directly, but cheap lens materials can make it worse and high-quality ones can mitigate it. Even with a cheap lens, you can make things much better simply by using a lens hood or standing in the shade, and keeping the sun out of the frame.

Check more discussion of this question.

How do I enable auto-ISO in non-scene modes in a Nikon D5100?

Question

I'm trying to enable auto-ISO on my dad's Nikon D5100. There is an "Auto" option for "ISO sensitivity" in the menu, logically-enough under "ISO sensitivity settings"). This works fine in the Scene modes, but with P, A, S, or M, I get:

This option is not available at current settings or in the camera's current state.

Surely auto-ISO is not only available in the preprogrammed modes. How do I enable it?

Update: there is a separate section to "ISO sensitivity settings" below the main choice. That is only available in the P, S, A, and M modes, and has "Auto ISO sensitivity control". I've set this to ON, but empirically it's the hard-set value above that actually gets used. What is this separate setting, why is it separate, and (most of all) why doesn't it work?

Answer

Auto ISO isn't available in the non-scene modes per se.

The ISO Sensitivity Auto control option you mention in the latter part of your question is essentially 'Auto Pro'. You'll note in the menu that you can set a max ISO and a minimum shutter speed.

When ISO Sensitivity Auto control is enabled, the camera will endeavour to use the ISO you set, but will increase the ISO automatically (up to your defined max) if it's not achieving the shutter speed set in the menu. If you actually take a shot then check the settings used on the LCD, you may well see that the ISO will be a different value, and shown in red, to indicate that the camera took over and adjusted it automatically.

Check more discussion of this question.

Suggestions for photographers / videographers to best work together at the same event?

Question

I want to get a wedding photographer's perspective on videography. It seems like there can exist a natural tension between the two, as they are both under pressure from the bride to shoot the same once-in-a-lifetime experience and the presence of another person vying for the same camera angles can complicate matters. Specifically, how do you as a wedding photographer interact with and share the same space with a videographer?

Also, what advice do you have for photographers and videographers to make the best of working together and maybe even cooperating to helping each other out?

Answer

I work as a professional photographer AND as a professional videographer. I have worked with other photographers and other videographers on a shoot. There is more than enough space at a wedding for everyone to get the good angles if you have a shooting plan and discuss it before the event. Decide who will be where at which moment and stick to the plan.

What photographers don't get is that for video you need to maintain good framing and smooth movements the whole time you are recording. It is therefore much more difficult to move around. When I shoot photography it is the simplest thing in the world to move and shoot. I can crouch under the video camera or shoot around it without having to worry about my movement affecting the shot. We can EASILY stand next to each other in the aisle to get the ring shots etc.

ultimately, the client doesn't care about the technical difficulties. She has hired 2 people to do a job for her. No vendor is more important than another. We are all equally responsible for providing the best possible product to the person that hired us. This means you need to have the inter-personal skills to negotiate the shooting plan so EVERYBODY wins and the client gets what they paid for. You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar... and do you really think a bride is going to enjoy working with a pompous ass who thinks he is running the show? Do you think the bridesmaids will hire that guy for their wedding? Do you think the other vendors will recommend them to future clients?

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the best practices for DOF stacking?

Question

What are the best practices for DOF stacking? How do you get the frames with focus just right amount apart? How do you stack them in post processing?

Answer

If you are taking photos of something stationary, then a focusing rail will allow you to do them perfectly. If you are talking about moving things, like insects, then all you can do is take a lot of photos. If you aren't able to focus reliably without a tripod and rail, then you can use burst mode. But, with some practice, you can get to the point where you can reliably click the shutter when specific portions of the shot are in focus and capture a series that way instead.

Check more discussion of this question.

What is the EF 28 - 105 mm 1: 3.5-4.5 lens best for?

Question

I've been shooting for about a year now and am slowly acquiring lenses. I just bought two used on craigslist from someone who was getting rid of equipment.

• Canon EF 28 - 105 mm 1: 3.5-4.5
• Canon EF 75 - 300 mm 1: 4-5.6 III

I know why the 75-300mm is popular, it's one of the lower priced but still OK zoom lenses, at least for entry-level photography.

But what is the 28-105mm really good for? If the kit lens can do 18-55mm, and the zoom lens does 75-300mm, do you really need a lens that covers the 55mm - 75mm ?

I realize that it has a half stop less than the 75-300mm, but it just generally seems like nobody would buy this lens. However, on amazon.com it has many positive reviews. What am I missing?

Answer

While it doesn't cover the entire range of the very popular 24-105mm f/4 L lens (popular among professional studio photographers, at least), the 28-105mm represents an almost complete coverage for "people pictures". At the wide end, you have what would be a "normal" lens on an APS-C camera (around 40mm classic equivalent), and at the long end you have something that's just a bit longer than the classic portrait tele (at an equivalent of about 170mm, it's a bit longer than the 135mm classics that often include a soft-focus option). For individual and small group portraits, the focal length range is close to ideal.

The only real drawback for the portraiture niche is that it doesn't have a wide enough maximum aperture for the narrow depth of field currently in vogue, so it may be difficult to adequately isolate the subject from the background in environmental shots at the shorter focal lengths. That said, typical studio work has traditionally been done (in the 35mm format) at apertures around f/5.6 to f/11.

The focal lengths available may not seem adequate for "walkin' around" photography, but if you know that people are going to be your focus, then a lens in this range will cover most of your needs.

Check more discussion of this question.

Do they make a single-leg stabilizer, similar to a tripod but with only one leg?

Question

I'm looking for something that I can attach to my Nikon D5000 that will allow me to hold the camera steady, similar to a tripod, but MUCH lighter and easier to setup. I'm thinking it could also dub as a walking cane when hiking. Do they make such a thing? If so, what is it called?

Answer

You may want to take a gander at the trekpod. It is a monopod and a hiking staff!

Trek Tech's website

Check more discussion of this question.

How to take a good landscape picture against the sun?

Question

I like hiking, and usually take my DSLR with me. I often find myself in front of beautiful landscapes, with the sun really high or directly in front of me. The resulting pictures are usually pale, ie they lack contrast (I don't know if I'm clear). Also, the sky is usually very clear.

This can usually be post-processed, but what are the techniques for getting good pictures in such conditions ?

Answer

I think this is an example of: use the opportunities you have, rather than the ones you wish you had. The situation you describe is tricky, and it'll be difficult to get the kind of grand, well-lit landscape that you seen in magazines. But, as Kyle suggests, perhaps there are different interpretations of the scene that could work. Some specific suggestions (some of which are mentioned in other answers as well):

• Keep the sun off your glass (not just out of the frame): shoot from the shade, use a lens hood, shade the lens with your hand or a hat, etc.
• If you want a blue sky, underexpose or shoot in manual, spot-metering off the sky.
• A polarizer will help.
• Make note of interesting scenes and come back when the light is better.

Good luck!

Check more discussion of this question.

Why do filter sizes vary for lenses of the same focal length?

Question

I have a Nikkor 18-55 kit lens that has a 52mm filter, and recently I was looking that the 17-55 lens has a 77mm filter.

Is it because the latter is a better quality lens? I assume a bigger circle lets more light in.

Or because it has a greater maximum aperture (F/2.8 for the 17-55 vs F/3.5 for the kit lens)?

Or something else?

Answer

As Nick mentioned, there are two reasons why a lens might need a large filter diameter:

1. Your front element needs to be at least as large as your apparent aperture size.
2. If your lens has a wide field of view, you may need a large front element to avoid vignetting.

In the particular case of the 17-55, I think it's more of the latter than the former -- the aperture on a 55mm f/2.8 is 19.6mm; far smaller than the 77mm filter size of the lens. Even the old Nikkor 55mm f/1.2 AI had a 52mm filter ring.

For visual proof, here's the lens at 55mm, f/2.8:

As we can see, the apparent aperture is much smaller than the front element, even at f/2.8.

If we look at an angle at 55mm, f/2.8:

we see the edge of the image circle before the edge of the front element.

Considering 17mm,

once again, the aperture is much smaller than the front element.

However, this time, if we tilt the lens,

we can still see through the lens at an extreme enough angle that our aperture appears adjacent to the edge of the front element. I'm fairly certain that the wide angle, in combination with the lens's long physical length, is the reason this lens needs such a large filter size.

Check more discussion of this question.

Do sensors wear out?

Question

We all know that shutters wear out and they have a limited number of actuation's.

The question I have is, do sensors wear out too? Do they suffer any kind of damage after each shot?

Should I be concerned about this or is the sensor lifespan way longer than the shutter lifespan?

Answer

I'm going to go with the premise that they do not wear out. I've long downloaded and stitched together videos of solar activity captured by SOHO, or the Solar Heliospheric Observatory satellite. That satellite was launched in 1995, went operational in 1996, and is still sending back images. Its CCDs get POUNDED by solar particles, high energy protons and other radical forces on a continual basis. Dozens of times a year it takes direct hits from CME's (Coronal Mass Ejections) and other explosive flare events.

There are periodic "CCD Bakeouts", where the sensor is heated for a period of time which reduces temporal effects of the particle storms it endures. After a decade and a half, the images from SOHO look as good as ever. And while, granted, this kind of sensor is scientific grade, it also takes a beating a thousand times worse than any camera sensor will (or probably could)...CCD or CMOS.

So yup, I'm gonna go with sensors don't wear out.

Regarding shutters, they do have a specified lifetime, usually in the detailed specs. They can last anywhere from 15,000 actuations to several hundred thousand actuations, and sometimes its the luck of the draw. If they do wear out, they can be replaced, for a fee, but often a fee far cheaper than a replacement camera.

Check more discussion of this question.

How do I focus in low light for long exposures?

Question

I've been trying to take some long exposure shots at night with my Canon 450D. The problem I'm having is that I can't seem to get a shot in focus. The low light conditions prevent AF from working at all, nor is there enough light for me to get the focus correct by hand. I've tried through the viewfinder and the LCD, but they're both so dark I can't tell if I'm in focus or not.

Perhaps this is a lens issue? I have the 18-55mm ƒ/3.5 kit lens and the 50mm ƒ/1.8 EF lens; neither of them have focus markings, so I'm not sure if I'm hitting ∞ or if my lenses are even capable.

Thank you very much for the suggestions. I’m not able to shine a light, as I’m hoping to get landscapes and night sky shots, and I don’t have anything powerful enough to reflect back. I tried focusing with the 50mm ƒ/1.8 wide open, but I couldn't see anything. I don't think lens speed is going to make a difference.

It sounds like trial and error is my best shot here, which is unfortunate.

Side note: It sucks that the 450D has no way to display the focal length. This info is recorded in the image metadata, so it would seem like it should be available.

I have two more options that I came up with:

1. Set up during the evening, when there is enough light to focus, then take the shot at night. Potentially impractical due to time, but I see no reason it wouldn’t work.

2. Use another camera. I tried again with my PowerShot S90, and got significantly better results. I was able to manually set the focus to infinity, and the wider angle / smaller sensor meant that I didn't have to worry as much about depth of field causing blur. While the S90 only allows for 15s exposures, CHDK removes that limitation.

Answer

Lots of good advice and things try here, but whilst faster lenses are generally good for night shots, you will get a limited improvement in AF performance so you will hit the point where it's too dark to AF.

Faster lenses will also give you a brighter viewfinder which enables better manual focus, but again up to a point, with the default focus screen you see no improvement past f/2.6

Lighting the subject to focus is a good idea but not always possible, using the depth scale isn't possible in your case so I'm going to suggest something that's not been mentioned so far.

Focus bracketing

Just as exposure bracketing uses multiple exposures to overcome metering problems, focus bracketing uses multiple shots to overcome AF problems. Start with your best guess for the focus and shoot two shots either side by moving the focus ring slightly and then examine the shots on the LCD. It's time consuming to work this way for sure, but it's a good technique to employ as a last resort. I only wish camera bodies included this as a feature as it would become faster and more accurate.

If this still doesn't work for you consider recomposing to increase your depth of field to give yourself a better chance!

Check more discussion of this question.

Focusing for low light / long exposures

Question

I've been trying to take some long exposure shots at night with my Canon 450D. The problem I'm having is that I can't seem to get a shot in focus. The low light conditions prevent AF from working at all, nor is there enough light for me to get the focus correct by hand. I've tried through the viewfinder and the LCD, but they're both so dark I can't tell if I'm in focus or not.

Perhaps this is a lens issue? I have the 18-55mm ƒ/3.5 kit lens and the 50mm ƒ/1.8 EF lens; neither of them have focus markings, so I'm not sure if I'm hitting ∞ or if my lenses are even capable.

Thank you very much for the suggestions. I’m not able to shine a light, as I’m hoping to get landscapes and night sky shots, and I don’t have anything powerful enough to reflect back. I tried focusing with the 50mm ƒ/1.8 wide open, but I couldn't see anything. I don't think lens speed is going to make a difference.

It sounds like trial and error is my best shot here, which is unfortunate.

Side note: It sucks that the 450D has no way to display the focal length. This info is recorded in the image metadata, so it would seem like it should be available.

I have two more options that I came up with:

1. Set up during the evening, when there is enough light to focus, then take the shot at night. Potentially impractical due to time, but I see no reason it wouldn’t work.

2. Use another camera. I tried again with my PowerShot S90, and got significantly better results. I was able to manually set the focus to infinity, and the wider angle / smaller sensor meant that I didn't have to worry as much about depth of field causing blur. While the S90 only allows for 15s exposures, CHDK removes that limitation.

Answer

Lots of good advice and things try here, but whilst faster lenses are generally good for night shots, you will get a limited improvement in AF performance so you will hit the point where it's too dark to AF.

Faster lenses will also give you a brighter viewfinder which enables better manual focus, but again up to a point, with the default focus screen you see no improvement past f/2.6

Lighting the subject to focus is a good idea but not always possible, using the depth scale isn't possible in your case so I'm going to suggest something that's not been mentioned so far.

Focus bracketing

Just as exposure bracketing uses multiple exposures to overcome metering problems, focus bracketing uses multiple shots to overcome AF problems. Start with your best guess for the focus and shoot two shots either side by moving the focus ring slightly and then examine the shots on the LCD. It's time consuming to work this way for sure, but it's a good technique to employ as a last resort. I only wish camera bodies included this as a feature as it would become faster and more accurate.

If this still doesn't work for you consider recomposing to increase your depth of field to give yourself a better chance!

Check more discussion of this question.

Which Nikon kit lens is best to start with — or should I skip the kit lens?

Question

I'll buy the D3100, now I have to choose the lens. Right now, I have two packs to choose from:

• D3100 + AF-S DX 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR (pack price: 674€)
• D3100 + AF-S DX 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR (pack price: 510€)

Which one is the best investment? Either way I would love to buy the Nikkor 50mm f/1,8G (229€). I couldn't find any physical store (at Portugal) that sells the D3100 body only. I think I wouldn't mind having just the 50mm for a while. My actual camera is a sony-h2 with a 36-402mm (6-72 x6 crop factor).

Is any of those two kit lenses decent enough to buy with the camera or should I buy the body (and the 50mm) and get a decent better lens later? For example I've seen a AF-S DX 55-300mm f/4,5-5,6 ED VR for 363€ that probably would be more interesting than both kit lenses (and has the same diameter as the 50mm, awesome!).

P.S: I'm a landscape and portrait (amateur) photographer :P

Answer

Having a body and a 50mm isn't a bad way to get started, but if you do a lot of landscapes you might find it a bit stifling.

I'd pick up the 18-55 pack, kit lenses are generally good enough for you to start learning what works best for you and then look at investing into glass then. I rushed into buying stuff 6 months after getting a camera and then realised my style and usage was completely different.

Check more discussion of this question.

How can I overlay many frames from a video into a single merged image?

Question

I am looking for a simple way to turn a video into one image. I want each frame to be added to together to create one (over exposed) image. The point of this is I am trying to convert a video of me using a light to write in the air into a picture of 'Light Graffiti'. At the moment I can export each frame into a folder called 1.jpg, 2.jpg, 3.jpg ect. But I need a way to merge (Adding) these images literally on top of each other.

I don't have Photoshop but I can use Paint.net or Gimp.

What is the easiest way to batch merge a folder of images using add or is there an easier way to do this?

Answer

You could use ImageMagick to merge the images:

convert -compose lighten 1.jpg 2.jpg -composite 3.jpg -composite 4.jpg ... -composite result.jpg

Check more discussion of this question.

How do I diagnose possible damage to my D70 sensor after an attempted IR conversion?

Question

I tried to convert my Nikon D70 into IR, and after replacing the filter and reassembling the camera, I am unable to take any new pictures. I am able to see pictures that were previously present on the CF card, but new images are not previewed or stored to the card.

The shutter, focus, LCD, and metering work fine.

What could have gone wrong? How do I verify if my sensor board is zapped or the problem lies elsewhere?

Answer

First, a few questions to ask yourself:

• Did you properly ground yourself to the unit while working on it?
• How sure are you that the ribbon cables were replaced correctly? Could one have flipped or been re-installed incompletely?
• How are the cables connecting the sensor board to the rest of the camera? Could those have been stressed too much and are now loose?

It sounds to me like your sensor board is not properly connected to the PCB board. But without testing a new sensor board you are really going to just be guessing. I would take it apart, double check all of the ribbon cables, and put it back together. The next step would be to find a "parts" camera for sale and swap the sensor board, but obviously that will cost a bit.

Another option would be if you purchased your clear filter from a place like LifePixel - would be to give them a call and see if they have a second opinion.

Check more discussion of this question.

What is the formula for percent of frame filled at a specific distance and focal length?

Question

I am thinking about buying a new lens specifically to take photos of distant targets (birds, bears, etc). I currently own the Canon 70-300 IS USM, which is a nice lens, but I find that if I want to take a photo of anything further away than about 10 meters, the target does not fill a large amount of the frame (meaning I have to significantly crop in post production).

I am currently looking at the Canon prime 400mm, however I would like to determine at what distance an object will fill a reasonable proportion of the frame.

Is there a formula or rule of thumb I can apply that will help me in this situation? I realise the size of the target I am shooting will play a role here, so if we need to make an assumption about the size of the target please let me know.

Answer

The formula for the percentage of image filled is

focal_length x subject_size x 100
_________________________________distance x sensor size

All units are millimeters. Use the width of the subject/sensor to work out the horizontal fill % and the height of the object/sensor to work out the vertical fill %

Check more discussion of this question.

What are good online or DVD tutorials for my new Nikon D7000?

Question

I recently purchased Nikon D7000 and would like to learn how to use it properly and want to learn photography using it. Can anyone suggest good online tutorials which I can look at or any DVDs which I can purchase?

Answer

Try out this website from Nikon. It contains an interactive digital tutorial on how to use the D7000. It should be helpful in learning about your new camera.

Nikon D7000 Digital Tutorial

Check more discussion of this question.

Manual photography cheat sheet — where can I find one, or what should be on it?

Question

I have been trying to shoot more in manual modes (both camera and flash). At this point, I understand all the concepts, but all the adjustments slow me down.

I'd like to have a "cheat sheet" with all the basic calculations/tables on it that I can refer to in order to speed up the process, in a format that I can easily keep in my camera bag.

Does anyone know of a good sheet, or alternatively, if I create it what information should I include?

At the moment I'd like to have at least:

• an f-stop list (just full stops)
• basic guide number information

Answer

Since there are 3 important variables here: aperture, shutter speed and ISO, I would Google for Exposure Triangle Cheat Sheet for example. Here are a few:

• Manual Mode Cheat Sheet (Muddyboots Photography Blog)
• Exposure Chart Cheat Sheet (Flickr)
• My Exposure Triangle Cheat Sheet (glark.org)
• Aperture, ISO, and Shutter Speed Explained (not a sheet, but you can compact it)

I see you updated your question. With respect to guide numbers here is one:

• Flash unit Guide Number calculations (for film)

Check more discussion of this question.

How do I shoot massive bonfire in order to produce an HDR image?

Question

I am looking for advice on how to shoot a massive bonfire to produce an HDR image. My school has a massive bonfire every year for homecoming — it is 30+ ft. tall. I have been shooting and HDRing my photos for a year now and have gotten decent results during daytime shooting, but I have never really taken an HDR shot at night.

I have a tripod so I am not worried about getting an image; I am more concerned with the best way to get the series of images for an HDR'd image. Should I take one RAW and manipulate it into five JPEGs during post, or shoot five shots that night? Also, I would like to get as crisp an image as possible of the flames. Are crisp flames a pipe dream?

Just in case this helps: I will be shooting with a Sony a33, which is pretty good in low light, and either a 50mm/f1.8 or a 28mm/f2.8. All mounted on a tripod.

The fire is pretty bright during the initial burn, so that should help cut down my exposure time.

What tips do you have for me?

Answer

Pulling out multiple JPEGs from a single RAW file always results in lower quality HDRs than the one done with bracketed RAWs. Specially the dark parts of your image will show noticeable noise. On the other hand, bracketed shots require static scene which isn't the case for you but I believe is the right thing to do. If I were you I'd shoot as much bracketed shots as possible and try playing around to get the best outcome. Flame shots at night typically ends up requiring 1/30-1/40 (considering you already have some fast enough lenses) shutters which will not stop the action to a full stop but wont be bad either.

Worst case, when merged, resulting HDR will show some crowd movements and a dreamy flame, which isn't bad either, in fact it will add some interest in the photo ;)

Check more discussion of this question.

What is a parfocal lens and how beneficial is it to photography?

Question

I heard someone say that after using a parfocal lens for the first time, they would never switch back. What is a parfocal lens, how is it different from any other lens, and what are the advantages and disadvantages for photography? Would you pay extra for this or prefer it over varifocal?

Answer

Parfocal lens is a lens which remains in focus when you change the focal length. The non-parfocal lens is called varifocal.

It is very convenient to focus at the maximum focal length and change the zoom afterwards. It is more important for manual-focus lens because a well functioning auto-focus can quickly adjust the lens to keep it in focus.

Check more discussion of this question.

How much does it cost to replace a DSLR shutter?

Question

I own a Nikon D5000 and I've read in numerous places that the earliest part that fails in a DSLR is the shutter. This is rated to 100,000 actuations, and since there are weeks when I shoot 1000 pics, I am getting a bit worried.

Can it be replaced? Is it (very) expensive? Is it a routine thing?

Answer

I wouldn't worry about it. Shutters can (and do) eventually fail, but the good news is that repair is relatively affordable. I know a few folks who have had shutters replaced, the cost has generally been between $200-300.

Take a look at another question which discussions how many actuations are "too many" and talks about the likelihood of failure. Enjoy your camera, create some great images, and if you wear the thing out it's a sign you're enjoying your hobby :)

Check more discussion of this question.

How to protect my camera's rear lcd?

Question

I searched a bit and found two main types of protections: plastic and glass. Plastic is a lot cheaper but a lot of people complain about bubbles, dust, and low adherence. The glass ones seem to be better but are more expensive.

Which one do you advise? Do you use any of these solutions? My biggest concern is the "glue" residues that eventually some of them might leave.

Answer

I have used both glass and plastic. Giottos (glass) and BestSkinsEver (plastic). Bottomline, the glass is by far the best looking in terms of optical quality. Glare is the same as the LCD itself. However, it is relatively expensive, and the tape that is used is just around the outside, so if it is not done properly or evenly, dust will get in. Being glass, it will scratch, but at least it is disposable. But scratches on a $30 cover can make you just as angry.

FWIW, the LCD already has a protective glass cover that is replaceable. However, I do not think it is replaceable by consumers, and must be sent to your camera maker. Just know that there is already glass covering the LCD.

The plastic does not have the same clarity, but unless you are pixel peeping on the LCD, you won't notice. Glare is gone completely. The clarity depends on the care with which it is applied: it must be very clean and smoothed over well. The plastic does not scratch, and at around $6, its easy to replace. The 'glue' is over the whole surface though some use attach via static or hydrostatic methods (no glue). I have the plastic on my smartphone, iPad and 40D LCD and have been happy. It removes easily, though you can not reuse the plastic if you remove it, as it stretches in removing it.

My recommendation: get the plastic, give it a try. If you hate the clarity, go for the glass.

Check more discussion of this question.

How do I keep the horizon straight when taking a photo (without a tripod)?

Question

I use a DSLR and I very often find that when I shoot without a tripod, and with my eye to the viewfinder (as opposed to using LiveView), my photos end up slightly crooked: lines that should be horizontal or vertical are slightly slanted.

Obviously I can fix this very easily in post-processing, but it would be nicer to get it right in camera. I always try to use the viewfinder's focusing points to straighten my composition (by lining them up with a horizontal or vertical element in the scene) but still, the photos so often end up crooked!

Are there any good tips for getting better at this? Is it a posture thing? Do (some) people tend to lean slightly as they press the shutter button? I'm constantly amazed at my inability to do such a simple thing right. Help!

Answer

I've not got my technique down perfectly yet, but one thing I noticed was my horizons leaning to the right and it was down to me pressing on the shutter too hard and just pushing it down. There's a lot of information on how to beat it but the best I found was slowing my breathing down and very slowly squeezing it instead.

One of the other interesting ones was to make a low tech monopod with some string and a nut-bolt combo on the tripod mount, you drop the string and stand on it and the tension keeps the camera a bit more solid.

Check more discussion of this question.

Should I be worried about ownership of photos taken on my camera by others?

Question

If you are at a social event, such as a party, and someone wants borrows your camera to take a couple of photos (which will typically be of the photographer!), are you concerned about copyright issues?

(Ignore for a second the many other issues, such as your fear for theft, damage, thumbprints on the lens, lost opportunities and your cynical doubt that anyone but you can actually take a reasonable photo.)

I spoke to one (amateur) photographer recently, who said he flatly refused to let others borrow his camera, due to two fears:

• They would claim copyright on the photos they had taken. I assume that is a low risk, but a fair one: Without any other agreement in place, the copyright belongs to the person who composed the shot, not the person who owns the camera, right? I could see some shared copyright in situations where the lighting has been set-up by one person, the composition by another, the subject created by a third, etc.

• They might (incorrectly) claim copyright on other photos that he had taken.

This sounds rather implausible to me. I would have thought the onus would be on the borrower to prove the photos were taken by them.

Am I being naive? Has this happened to you and/or are you concerned about it?

Update: I assume in this scenario, that there has been no agreement beforehand as to the disposition of the copyright.

Answer

It is a regular occurance that someone insists on taking a photo of me at weddings, saying "you taking all these photos but I bet you never have any of you!" when in fact I have a photo of me at pretty much every one! Here are some of the best ones:

I find it impolite to refuse, so I simply don't use the photos (they are usually out of focus anyway). In fact I actually quite like to have the photos to remember the event by, but in any case they very rarely end up in the album unless the couple request it. In the occasions where I've given my camera to someone I trust I'll usually shoot a photo of the floor before and after, and then if I do anything with the photos I'll add an appropriate attribution.

The only tricky case I see is when a stranger uses your camera at an event and produces a good image that you want to be able to send to the client, but you have no idea who actually took it. In this case you could probably get away with using it under the orphaned works legislation, though if you really want to cover your back just don't use the image!

If someone does take a photo with your camera which turns out to be valuable that shouldn't be a difficult situation at all, you simply don't claim credit or profit from it! When I shoot with other people's cameras I will do my very best to obtain a copy of the photos on the day by whatever means possible. This prevents any disputes before they even start!

Check more discussion of this question.