How should I decide which flash to purchase for my Sony A580?

Question

I have a Sony a580 and I'm thinking about purchasing a flash.

I'd like to use the flash for indoor photography: portraits, group photos and candid shots.

It looks like there are a number of options out there with wildly different prices (from $100 up to $500). With those price differences you have to ask if it would be better to purchase multiple cheaper flashes than one of the high end units.

What factors should I consider when making this decision?

Answer

Probably the first important decision is whether you need the convenience (and working speed) of TTL metering with a flash, or are you going to set up your shots in a more crafty way and so a (significantly cheaper) manual flash would suffice.

You can probably get away with a manual one for portraits and group shots (actually, it would be better to have at least two, so you'd have a key light for lighting the scene and a fill light to reduce shadows from the other side). Opportunities for candid shots, however, may come unplanned, and TTL would be of great help for making sure the flash gives the right amount of pop in hurry. Perhaps one TTL flash and one manual flash to help in off-camera work would be a good starting setup for you.

Note that Sony/Minolta hot-shoes are different from ISO 518 standard hot shoe that the rest of manufacturers use, so you'll need an adapter for most manual flashes if you want to use them on-camera.

Further factors to consider, no matter if you want the TTL or not, are still the same as when choosing a manual flash.

You'll probably also need some accessories for your flash - see "What's a decent lighting kit for getting started with portraits?".

Check more discussion of this question.

Bracketing on Nikon D5100, is it true bracketing?

Question

There is a bracketing feature on Nikon D5100 but it does not seem to work as it does on other cameras such as D90.

There is also a separate feature called HDR on D51000 and I am guessing Bracketing is being confused with it. HDR is totally different and should not be called bracketing? Can someone clarify this to me you can take 3 multiple shots with different exposure on Nikon D5100 and view them seperately?

Answer

The D5100 can bracket for exposure, which is what I suppose you call true bracketing. Technically this is AEB which stands for Auto-Exposure Bracketing.

It can also bracket for WB or Adaptive D-Lighting which is what people refer to as a virtual bracket because the camera takes ONE shot and saves it 3 times, with different WB or Adaptive D-Lighting setting.

There is ALSO a separate HDR feature which takes 3 shots of bracketed for exposure (AEB) but blends them together into one tone-mapped shot right in the camera. In this case only one image is saved onto the memory card. Technically this is closer to Exposure-Fusion but HDR is a better known acronym so most products say HDR instead.

Check more discussion of this question.

What is color temperature and how does it affect my photography?

Question

I have seen color temperature mentioned with regard to white balance, mixing different sources of light, etc., but I haven't come across a clear explanation of what it means to talk about the 'temperature' of light.

How does the color temperature of my light sources effect the images I capture? Are some color temperatures inherently better than others?

Answer

Color-temperature is a way to describe the color of light along a spectrum that goes from warm colors (measured as having a lower temperature) to cool colors (measures as having a higher temperature).

Color-temperature is measured in Kelvin degrees and corresponds to the temperature at which a certain metal must be heated to emit light of that color. That is why lower temperatures (say 3000K) give off warm (yellow-organge) light and that high temperatures (9000K) give off color (blueish) light.

White-balance is the process of canceling the effect color-temperature in a photograph. This is because our brain corrects what our eyes see to let us see white as white, although it may be tinted by the color-temperature of light.

If the color-temperature of light is known, then its effect can be mostly canceled. Automatic white-balance guesses at that temperature (see this question). Preset white-balance use mostly fixed known temperatures (6500K for daylight, 9500k for cloudy, 3000k for tungsten, etc - actual values vary between cameras).

For custom white-balance the camera uses a sample that is known to be white and deduces the color-temperature of light from that. Some cameras actually report the measured color-temperatures when using custom white-balance.

Note that for light sources that are mixed or simply way off from typical lighting conditions (sodium vapor lights, some fluorescents) it is not possible to cancel the effect because some parts of the visible spectrum are missing.

Since colors affect the mood of a photograph and how we perceive images, so does color-temperature. It is known that warmer colors (lower temperatures) are generally perceived as more pleasant and some photographers purposefully set the white-balance wrong to convey a certain mood. Cool colors (higher temperatures) are associated with night and mystery. Neither is better, it must simply fit the photo and how you intend viewers to perceive it.

Check more discussion of this question.

Which prime lens to get after the 18-55mm & 55-250mm?

Question

I started out with the 18-55mm IS kit lens on my Canon EOS 550D over a year ago, and added the 55-250mm IS a couple of months back to augment my telephoto reach (based on the recommendations in one of my earlier questions). After shooting almost 5000 photos with the former and 1000+ with the latter, the biggest limitation I find is their low light shooting ability and I've ended up shooting a lot of images at ISO 3200 and\or slow shutter speeds resulting in subject blur. AF performance has also been a bit iffy in these situations. On the subjective front, I've generally preferred to shoot portraits.

To this end I did some analysis on a selected subset of my photos using Exposureplot and exiftool+Excel to quantify my results (also below), and found that 55mm is the most shot focal length followed by 18mm, both of which correspond to the lens range limits (so likely to be skewed). The usual portrait ranges (80-110) also feature reasonably given that the range was added only recently.

I also checked out the Canon lens lineup and have settled on the following shortlist based on my above analysis (given my budget of around $500):

Lens(length+Av) Macro   USM     IS      L-series
50 mm   f/1.8   No      No      No      No
35 mm   f/2     No      No      No      No
50 mm   f/2.5   Yes     No      No      No
28 mm   f/2.8   No      No      No      No
24 mm   f/2.8   No      No      No      No
50 mm   f/1.4   No      Yes     No      No
100 mm  f/2.8   Yes     No      No      No
135 mm  f/2.8   No      No      No      No
60 mm   f/2.8   Yes     Yes     No      No
85 mm   f/1.8   No      Yes     No      No
100 mm  f/2     No      Yes     No      No
28 mm   f/1.8   No      Yes     No      No
100 mm  f/2.8   Yes     Yes     No      No

The EFS 17-55mm f2.8 would serve my requirements, but is beyond my budget at present. I do plan to get it eventually. I also doubt that I'll be upgrading to a full frame DSLR, so EF-S lenses are also good for me.

To summarize, I need the following from the next lens:

1. Good low light performance
2. Suitable for portrait (haven't tried playing around with depth of field much so far, as I end up shooting wide open most of the time anyway)
3. Macro ability would be a plus (does it make sense to get a non-macro & a macro for similar focal length?)
4. Better AF performance (should be a given for the lenses as they are f2.8 or wider, and many are USM)
5. Canon lenses preferred as I'm not sure of the reliability & service\warranty options of 3rd party lenses in India

So, given this scenario, which would be the recommended lens to get?

Answer

Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM

Suits (1) (2) ad (3) perfectly, and it is not expensive.

While it makes sense to get a non-macro and a macro lens for a similar focal length, I see that you are on a budget, so that wouldn't be your best choice.

I did not suggest the 50mm f/1.4 because 50mm is very slightly short for portrait, and you cannot do macro at all, even the kit lens offers a better magnifying ratio.

Lastly, allow me to point out that you can learn very little from shooting 6000 photos. You will, however, learn a lot if you try to delete 5900 photos from the 6000 you shot.

If you constantly find yourself shooting in low light condition, getting a flash may not be a bad idea at all, provided you know how to use it right.

I thought my photography would improve if I have bought a better lens. So I did, and I see less noise but no improvement. So I experiment with different ways of shooting, I shoot EVERYTHING in all kinds of situation. I no longer limit myself to shooting indoor. I try everything I can.

Then, my photography improved, and I am now able to create much much better photos, using the exact same lenses that I once said is limiting.

Check more discussion of this question.

Why do wide angle prime lenses have relatively small apertures?

Question

I've noticed that many of the wide angle prime lenses (at least for Canon) have somewhat smaller apertures than their normal or telephoto counterparts. E.g. the regular Canon 24mm prime is f/2.8 while the 50mm prime is f/1.8.

Theoretically, it should be possible to make large aperture wide angle lenses, as their opening will be much smaller than primes with longer focal lengths. So, why are there no wide angle lenses with larger apertures? Does a larger aperture place limits on the smallest aperture a lens can have, as this could have an impact on the depth of field for landscape photography.

Answer

Broadly speaking wide aperture lenses are easier to design the longer the focal length. The reason that you don't see any 400mm f/1.4 lenses is due to manufacturing difficulties, e.g. keeping dispersion low while producing elements of the size required for such apertures. It's worth restating that the designation f/1.4 means that the size of the aperture stop is the focal length divided by 1.4, which for a 400 f/1.4 is a whopping 285mm. Technically it's the image of the aperture stop that must be that size, which means the front element has to be at least that big.

If you look at the widest of Canon's superteles you see a pattern that 150mm seems to be about the limit of what is economical:

• 400/2.8 = 142mm

• 600/4.0 = 150mm

• 800/5.6 = 142mm

Lenses with focal length less that the registration distance (about 46mm for most DSLRs) have to incorporate what's known as a retrofocal design, which is essentially a reverse telephoto group (or "wide converter") at the back of the lens. The wider the lens the more corrections have to be performed due to the retrofocal design, and these corrections are more difficult for wide apertures lenses.

You can see this if you look at the design of the Canon 24mm f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.8:

Canon 24mm f/2.8

50mm f/1.8

The reason 50mm offer such good price/performance ratio when it comes to aperture is that for 35mm cameras that 50mm sits at the sweet spot where the focal length is long enough to allow a simpler non retrofocal design, but not too long that large pieces of glass have to be used to give a good f/number.

Check more discussion of this question.

Does it make sense to get a non-macro and a macro of similar focal lengths?

Question

I recently asked a question on which prime lens to get after the kit lenses, and in my shortlist of lenses there was quite a lot of overlap of focal lengths along with macro & non-macro versions of a lens. From what I've read so far, macro lenses have a smaller maximum aperture than their non-macro counterparts (usually around a stop faster), and the AF performance may be poorer (some like the EF-S 60mm macro are said to have fast AF). However, in terms of optical performance, they seem to be just as good as any prime.

So, as per a comment to the earlier question, I'm asking this specifically - does it make sense to get a non-macro and macro lens of similar focal lengths? Ex. (Canon specific), the EF 50mm f/1.8 and 60mm f/2.8 macro have pretty similar focal lengths (vastly different prices though), or the 85mm f/1.8 and the 100mm f/2.8 macro.

Answer

Buy lenses based on your needs. If you do need a macro lens and a super-fast lens of the same focal length to get your photos, then yes, it makes sense to buy both lenses. If you can do with the maximum aperture of macro lens or with the minimum focusing distance of the non-macro prime, then you don't need the other.

Also, collecting lenses can be a hobby by itself. For example, there are people out there with vast collections of 50mm or 135mm lenses.

Check more discussion of this question.

What is the best setup for shooting sports at night with a point & shoot camera?

Question

I always try to take good photographs in soccer matches or in races at night, not using flash, and I have always the same result: too much blurred photos.

I don't have an SLR, but I'm sure that's not the problem; the problem is the setup.

What I have to do?

My camera is a Panasonic Lumix FZ18.

Thanks!

Answer

Actually, shooting with a compact camera rather than an SLR is part of the problem. Basically, shooting a game at night means that you don't have enough light for decent exposure times. As a consequence, your exposures are long and the moving objects are burred. The field's lighting are rarely enough to allow you to capture moving subjects with ISO low enough so noise is not a problem. In this case, the options are to:

1. Add lighting (e.g., use a flash - but in your specific case there are 2 problems: your camera does not support an external hot-shoe flash, which may be solved by an optical slave, and more seriously, typical compact flashes just don't have enough power to light a soccer field effectively but it may be just fine for a race track if you can get close to the action).

2. Use a lens with large maximum aperture (small F-number). Your camera offers F2.8 which is not bad for this purpose, but in the SLR world you have lenses with bigger apertures.

3. Use a camera with more sensitive sensor. P&S cameras typically have far smaller sensors compared to SLR's. In the digital world, the bigger the sensor - the better its light recording ability. Pro sports shooters use full-frame, or at least APS-C bodies for the advantage in high-ISO low noise images they have over P&S cameras. You can dial up the ISO in your camera but the images will become very noisy/grainy vary fast. Also note that your camera is pretty old (2007 model?) which means that even for this form factor, you can expect better ISO performance from newer technology.

So, as you see, SLR camera will certainly help you to achieve better images in these tough conditions.

On top of all - remember to always use a tripod there and a remote release if possible. Even if the players and the ball end up somewhat blurred, at least the field and the background will remain sharp.

Check more discussion of this question.

What solution should I use for cataloging photos for private sharing?

Question

I'm seeking a solution for cataloging many thousands of images. Each photo will be tagged and categorized to become searchable by a small group of private people. I've considered any combination with Lightroom, a custom Wordpress theme, and a private Flickr gallery. Does any one have any additional suggestions?

Answer

Picasa Web Albums work best. It meets the following of your requirements:

• You can catalog a large number of photos (you may need to purchase additional storage from Google based on image resolution, but its relatively cheap)

• You can tag individuals and add categories.

• You can customize your privacy settings and sharing options.

• It's really easy to set-up, use and share.

I have experimented with SlideShowPro, Flickr and Facebook but found Picasa the best option for private sharing.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is Pentax AF360 same as Jessops 360AFD?

Question

I've got a Jessops 360AFD flash and I'm looking for a diffuser for it (the original one is broken). I have been led to believe it is the same as a Pentax AF360.

Is this the case? Or have I had misinformation?

Answer

No. It is almost certainly a relabeled version of the Tumax DPT386AFZ. This flash is made by Icorp Development Ltd., a Hong Kong company which makes low-cost reverse-engineered dedicated system flashes sold under the Tumax brand and also as what they call "private label" products.

Other versions of this flash, or other models from Tumax, are sold under brands like Digital Concepts, Vivitar (a brand unrelated to the old-school Vivitar company), Bell and Howell, Bower, and so on. Various versions of this flash often claim slightly different guide numbers, but 36m is on the low side. Presumably a company can order them that way to cut costs — or it's possible that it's just older version than currently offered.

Reviews are mixed; some people are happy with the results for the lower price than the camera-system brands or from bigger third-party flash companies, while others have bad experiences with quality and support. Support is a big deal: in the US, the companies selling these models are basically cheap-chinese-electronics-importers, not camera companies, and customer support is not in their business model. I don't know if that's the case with Jessops. Have you contacted them about the broken diffuser?

Check more discussion of this question.

Do digital cameras lose picture quality over time?

Question

For some reasons when I look at my first pictures from my camera (DSLR), they look stunning. I know it could be just psychological. Another friend told me that her camera was really good when she bought it fours years ago (10 MP), but now it is just ok. I see her P&S very blurry in indoors (almost like phone quality pictures).

A quick search yielded this yahoo answer, which is actually not bad. That answer can be summarized as: not really, but some things make image quality worse. Listed factors include:

• Dust accumulation on the sensor (blamed for "resolution loss, pixels of false colors, noise, spots")
• Worn-out moving parts leaving the sensor out of alignment ("focus images, blurry and distorted images")
• Improper maintenance leading to "blown-out receptors on the sensor" (which lead to "blank spots on the image, false-color pixels and resolution loss")
• Dust in the lens ("noisy, blurry and distorted images")
• Scratched or destroyed lens coating ("distortion or false colors due to ultraviolet and infrared radiation reaching the sensor")

Is there any truth to it? What should I be careful for proper maintenance?

Answer

Practically speaking, digital cameras do not lose quality over time.

Some factors can come into play such as:

• Equipment can wear causing it to be out of spec
• Environmental factors such as dirt, sand, dust, moisture can degrade quality
• Heat or excessive use(causing heat) can cause all electronic devices to experience wear
• Other regular use issues from dropping, lack of cleaning, etc

But overall, these things should hardly turn a great looking 10MP point and shoot camera into a 640X480 resolution cell phone.

Maintenance, is an entirely new question if you would like to ask or search for that.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is dust in a zoom lens a problem which should be addressed?

Question

I have accumulated some amount of dust inside one of my zoom lenses, visible through the front glass.

It does not appear to affect picture quality as far as I can tell, but I wonder if this is something that can or should be addressed? Who would carry out such a cleaning?

Answer

Dust inside the lens shouldn't be a problem, as it will always be thrown out of focus enough as not to make a difference. Even on the smallest apertures, the depth of field won't extend far enough forwards to make it visible.

If it really bothers you, take it to an independent photo shop and see if they offer lens servicing.

Check more discussion of this question.

How limiting are the line-of-sight requirements of Canon's optical wireless flash system?

Question

I have a Canon 7D and 580EX II Speedlite, and am trying to make the jump into flash photography, particularly portrait work. I understand that the 7D's wireless trigger works by line-of-sight. Will this prohibit me from triggering flashes that are off center? For example, an umbrella to the side (either directly to the side or front-and-to-the-side) of the subject pointing toward the subject. I'd assume that the back of the flash wouldn't be facing directly at my camera.

I haven't bought the gear yet, but I was hoping the trigger on my camera would be good enough to forego the need to purchase any additional triggers.

Answer

The flash is triggered by the popup-flash of the 7D.

The signal is transmitted by light, it is just way too fast for the naked eye to see. The popup flash would strobes rapidly, like sending out morse-codes, and the external flash would pick it up and fires in sync. The whole thing is super fast, like in 1/500 of a second.

Understanding that, you now know that the limitation of such approach is that when the light is too weak, it will not reach the flash, and the external flash will not fire.

Another situation is that, when the surrounding it very bright (under direct sunlight for example), the popup flash is relatively weak, and the "morse-code" signals cannot be properly detected by the external flash.

Reducing the distance between the popup flash and external flash should solve this.

I use the 60D, and it has the same system too. I do not do a lot of outdoor daytime shot, I usually have a cable with me should I need off-center external flash. However I use the wireless flash system indoor very often. It is sufficiently reliable when you are in an indoor settings. Provided that you have some walls to bounce some of the light around, it really isn't a must that the flash must be at line of sight.

Ultimately, in an indoor settings, in a small room, I can place the external flash anywhere I want, and it fires no problem. If your portrait work focus on indoor shooting, its absolutely fine.

Finally, you already have the 7D, you do not seem to have the flash unit yet. You must buy a flash regardless which wireless option you choose, right? So why don't you buy a good flash unit, try out the wireless function on the 7D, then decide if you really need other wireless solution?

Check more discussion of this question.

Is ND400 insufficient for some sun moments?

Question

I've taken a shot of the sun using my Tamron 70-300 (at 300) on my Nikon D5000 at 1/4000 and F40 and had attached the ND400 filter.

The shot was taken mostly to test the filter so I ignored the dirty window through which I shot.

However I was surprised to find out that even with all the controls turned to minimum luminosity and having the filter installed the sun was too bright. Maybe the time of day (local time around 09:00 AM, today, November 29th) was inappropriate for taking such pictures?

Or maybe the filter is not enough?

Answer

The pixels are not overexposed in any channel, and applying a heavy curve will reveal the darker edges and some dark spots. What you have is an exposed-to-the-right image of how the sun looks like - it is a big shiny ball. IMHO you should have enough data in RAW to tweak this into a usable image.

Check more discussion of this question.

What settings do I need to take a night cityscape with blue sky like Eric Rolph?

Question

I was wowed when I looked at this image on google maps for the Prudential Tower observatory. Then I start digging into the photographer (Eric Rolph -flickr) and I found he had some stunning pics beside this.

What do I need to take a picture like this? Stand, long exposure, how much if yes? Can I achive something similar with my Nikon D5100?

Eric Rolph - For The Shortening of Our Life

For reference: this photo was taken with Canon EOS 5D.

Answer

You can very well take night shots like this with D5100. I'll explain from my experience when i took this pic.

Time

Timing is very important in city-light shots. You can see the deep-blue/purple color of sky in the example picture you posted. You get this color a bit after sunset (Twilight). Unlike other landscape shots, you need a clear sky. So plan your trip to the observatory accordingly.

Lens

A wide angle lens is the most suitable for city-light shots. Apart from getting a wide viewing angle you also get a good depth of field.

Aperture

What you need is a large depth of field. Setting it more than f/8 on a wide angle lens gives you good depth of field. Few city-light shots look particularly good if you go all the way to f/22. You get star burst from light. But this depends on your lens.

Shutter speed

I exposed my light meter off the blue sky. It gave me some 10s of shutter speed. Generally it is a good idea to meter off the blue sky.

Tripod

You definitely need a tripod or a solid support for your camera. Exposure time is going to be much more than you can hand hold the camera.

Other consideration

1. Observatories have big glass windows. And at night they start reflecting room lighting. Be ready to post-process them out.
2. Shoot raw. You might want to change WB later.
3. Use lens hood.

About the actual image

1. Looks like the photographer has set a cooler WB on the image. I reduced WB of my image to get this look:

   

2. The EXIF data of image shows it is shot at 1/30th of second. To compensate this faster shutter speed aperture is increased to f/2.8 and ISO bumped up to 1250. The reason of using a fast shutter speed is not very clear to me. It could be because tripods might not be allowed (?) in John Hancock observatory, Boston.

Check more discussion of this question.

What's the fastest memory card that can be used with a Canon S95 (P&S) digital camera?

Question

The S95 can apparently accommodate any of the following: SD/SDHC Memory Card, SDXC Memory Card, MultiMediaCard, MMCplus Card, HC MMCplus Card.

Which one is going to be the fastest? I really want to minimize the time to take photos.

Of those choices, I've only used/heard of Secure Digital, so if I had to just pick one at random it would be one of those. "Class 10" SD sounds like the way to go.

Bonus questions: what's the safest bet as far as...

• working in a standard/off-the-shelf card reader?
• longevity?

Answer

Plain SD cards top out at 2GB; SDHC (Secure Digital High Capacity) gets you between 4GB and 16GB; SDXC (Secure Digital eXtended Capacity) gets you from 32GB to 2TB. In practical terms, you're going to be using SDHC cards most of the time -- under 4GB is kind of limiting, forcing you to carry a spare or two, and anything more than 16GB is too expensive to be practical unless you're dealing with a very-high-resolution camera and recording raw data.

The speed of the card is a separate deal. It's not directly related to the capacity.

As for MMC (MultiMedia Card), it's an obsolete format. The SD family shares the same physical layout and electrical contacts, so most SD card devices can also use MMC if you have old cards lying around.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is it necessary to turn off lens-based VR before turning off the camera?

Question

I just bought a D3100 and started reading its manual. On the lens' Vibration Reduction chapter it said that the VR should be turned off before turning off the camera, every time I use it. Is it really necessary? Why?

I think the manual said it had to do with the lens stability, after the camera is turned off...

Answer

It depends on the lens, but it's a god habit to get into. Doing a "safe shut-down" ritual on a lens that doesn't need it has far fewer consequences than skipping the step on a lens that does.

In-lens optical stabilisation systems work by floating one or more lens elements under the control of servo motors. While VR (or IS, or whatever the brand name is on your camera) is active, there is no firm mechanical connection between the lens's stabilisation element(s) and the body of the lens -- it's essentially free to flop around inside the body if the motors aren't running. If you shut off stabilisation on the lens while the camera is still powered up, the element is returned to a neutral position and mechanically locked in place. If you don't, then the lens is still free, but there's no longer a motor to keep it in place.

Not only does that mean that the lens is less delicate to transport, it also means that if things go wrong and the element gets stuck, you're left with a non-stabilised lens that has all of its elements centred. If the element were to become frozen somewhere outside of its normal range of controlled motion, you'll be left with a lens that is visibly degraded; softness and vignetting will be centred around the lens's optical center, which will no longer be the centre of the image. In other words, you'll have a lens that makes really nice pictures only if you keep the subject, say, left of centre in the image.

I remember a time when we had to run a head-parking routine on hard disk drives before shutting down a computer. It wasn't always necessary, but if the computer were bumped or moved with power off and the heads unparked, there was a good chance that you'd lose your disk. Modern drives (basically everything made since 1993 or so) autopark the heads -- the "park routine" is just a spring, so you don't have to use the motor to move the heads to a safe position. VR/IS lenses will probably be the same as time goes by -- but it's the lens you're using, not the camera, that determines whether you need to let the stabilisation system centre under power or not.

Check more discussion of this question.

What advantages does manual mode have over aperture priority mode?

Question

I'm wondering what are the most compelling reasons to switch to manual mode on my DSLR. I mostly just use aperture priority mode so I have good control over the depth of field combined with an awareness of the shutter speed that goes with it. My photography is mostly done wandering about with camera in hand, or occasionally on a tripod. I don't do studio photography and I just use the natural light.

I did learn how to take photos manually (with an Olympus OM-1) so I know how to do it, but I enjoy the extra convenience of aperture mode, particularly being able to take the photo quickly and capturing the moment rather than fiddling with dials and missing the shot.

So what would be some key advantages of using manual mode for my sort of photography that are worth the (small amount of) extra hassle involved?

And do you have any tips to minimise the downside (other than practicing to be quick)?

Answer

I typically use aperture priority as well, but I also work a fair bit in manual mode. The typical case for me is if I am in an environment where the lighting situation is quite static, but the subject may have a lot of contrast. Here I switch to manual mode and shoot a few test frames to pinpoint the exposure (typically I try to spot meter on a white surface, and then overexpose that reading by 1.5-2 steps as a first guess).

The main advantage is that you are in full control, and the camera will not be "fooled" by unexpected contrasts in the frame. The downside is that it is a bit slower to change exposure in case the lighting situation changes.

Check more discussion of this question.

Does focus breathing make a lens slower when close focusing?

Question

I've heard that focal length of some lenses will become noticeably longer when focusing to a close distance, an effect called "focus breathing". Since f-number is focal length divided by diameter of physical aperture and aperture size does not change, it seems logical to conclude that such lens should become slower when focusing close.

Is that really so, or is there something I'm overlooking?

Answer

That is true, and very noticeable in macro lenses. For example a Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR (at infinity) is f/4.8 at it's closest focus distance of 30cm or so.

Check more discussion of this question.

What is the range of dimensions for a camera to fit comfortably in a pocket?

Question

With compact system cameras (bridge cameras, hybrids, etc) the sizes are confusing on whether they are meant to fit into a pocket or not. This depends on the lens as well. When searching for one online and not having a demo camera the dimensions are the best information without a thorough review being avail.

What are the maximum length, width and height measurements for a camera which will fit into a pocket? (excluding the attached lens, as this can be accounted for later)

Answer

This is a subjective topic that many camera reviews mention. A typical females pockets are much, much smaller than any "pocket" camera I've ever owned would fit into. But the pockets of the teenager walking with his pants down to his ankles, big enough for a small DSLR!

The answer to what is a pocket size camera is up to you! Personally, I have never put a point and shoot camera directly into my pocket, because I prefer to use a case, that adds too much bulk. I also do not wear pants with pockets large enough to carry anything inside of a case. My cell phone inside a very thin case is about as large as I will go. But, about half of the year here in Minnesota I will wear some type of jacket, so a point and shoot camera inside a case can then be carried in my jacket pocket. The size of the camera case adds much more bulk for me than the .25 - .5 inches that the point and shoot cameras vary in size.

To give you some rough estimates of what I personally am comfortable with for a "pocketable" camera:

• 4.7 x 2.9 x 2.5 in (120 x 74 x 63 mm) I used to carry a camera around this size in my BACK jeans pocket. It was HUGE! But in a pinch I could stow it in my back pocket if I had to.
• 4.2 x 2.8 x 1.7 in (106.4 x 71.9 x 42.5 mm) This is probably the maximum I would currently consider "pocket" size. It roughly follows the Canon G series cameras currently. It is not comfortable for me to put into a front jeans pocket, but it is possible.
• 3.9 x 2.4 x 1.1 in (98.9 x 59.9 x 26.7 mm) This is about the largest I will comfortably stow in my front jeans pocket. This roughly follows the Canon S95 series of cameras size.

Check more discussion of this question.

What settings do I need to take a night cityscape like this?

Question

I was wowed when I looked at this image on google maps for the Prudential Tower observatory. Then I start digging into the photographer (Eric Rolph -flickr) and I found he had some stunning pics beside this.

What do I need to take a picture like this? Stand, long exposure, how much if yes? Can I achive something similar with my Nikon D5100?

For reference this photo was taken with Canon EOS 5D

Answer

You can very well take night shots like this with D5100. I'll explain from my experience when i took this pic.

Time

Timing is very important in city-light shots. You can see the deep-blue/purple color of sky in the example picture you posted. You get this color a bit after sunset (Twilight). Unlike other landscape shots, you need a clear sky. So plan your trip to the observatory accordingly.

Lens

A wide angle lens is the most suitable for city-light shots. Apart from getting a wide viewing angle you also get a good depth of field.

Aperture

What you need is a large depth of field. Setting it more than f/8 on a wide angle lens gives you good depth of field. Few city-light shots look particularly good if you go all the way to f/22. You get star burst from light. But this depends on your lens.

Shutter speed

I exposed my light meter off the blue sky. It gave me some 10s of shutter speed. Generally it is a good idea to meter off the blue sky.

Tripod

You definitely need a tripod or a solid support for your camera. Exposure time is going to be much more than you can hand hold the camera.

Other consideration

1. Observatories have big glass windows. And at night they start reflecting room lighting. Be ready to post-process them out.
2. Shoot raw. You might want to change WB later.
3. Use lens hood.

Check more discussion of this question.

Which suits better for hobby usage: extension tubes vs. close-up filter?

Question

I am looking to do a little macro work, but am not ready to invest in a macro lens. For hobby work like photographing flowers and such would it be better to invest in a set of extension tubes or in a good close up filter? I would like to utilize my Canon 40D with either the 24-70mm f/2.8L or the 50mm f/1.2L lens I already own.

Answer

I've used extension tubes in the past, with success, but what I did find was that you'll have to manual focus because the AF sensor gets really crazy with tubes. For most macro work you'll want to focus manually anyway, so use your camera's live view.

I would stay away from close up filters. They're bulky and the quality is very poor.

In general, if you don't already own a portrait lens, a macro lens with a short focal length (say, the EF-s 60 or EF 100 macro lenses) can double portrait lenses.

Check more discussion of this question.

How can I achieve the dramatic sky as seen in these sample images?

Question

Below are some samples. Is this effect made with an optical filter or is it edited during post processing? In either case, what it is called?

• http://jpgmag.com/photos/3181099
• http://jpgmag.com/photos/3202143

Answer

In considering the second image I found an example out of my own collection as an example image to illustrate my point.

Before adjustments: After adjustments:

I think what you are looking at may have been achieved with HDR, as I did with my example images. I used Photomatix Pro with 3 source RAW files to achieve this. Outside of Photomatix, I did not process any further. The images that you provided look to have quite a bit of grain, so you could add that in. My original images did not have any filters applied to them.

Check more discussion of this question.

Does a crop sensor affect closest focusing distance? Why does it not affect focal length in EXIF data?

Question

Since I am considering to buy the Nikkor 105mm micro VR, I wondered if the cropped sensor does affect the closest focusing distance of 0.31m?

Thinking about this, the following additional (and theoretical) question came up: I have a Nikon D7000 which has a 1.5 crop factor, so for my understanding the focal length multiplies with 1.5. Lets say a lens at 100mm results in 150mm focal length. In the EXIF data of the picture however the value of 100 is saved. Shooting the same lens with a film or full-frame camera, the focal length is 100mm and also saved as such. I was wondering why crop-sensor cameras do not use and save the "real" focal length to the EXIF data, so the picture data is comparable without taking camera and lens into account?

Answer

Focal length is a measure of the lens's ability to bend light. As such this figure doesn't change when you use a smaller sensor. What actually happens when you use a smaller sensor is that your field of view narrows. Field of view is dependant both on the focal length and the format (the size of your film or sensor). The ubiquity of 35mm film among amateur photographers in the last half of the 20th century effectively took format out of the equation and lead to focal length being used to categorize the field of view.

When digital arrived and suddenly all sorts of different sensor sizes were being used the idea of a crop factor was introduced to people relate to the field of view they expected from a certain focal length on 35mm. This is not a problem so long as you realise the focal length doesn't really change, the crop factor operates only on the field of view (a crop factor of 2 halves the field of view). I agree that it would be nice to have the field if view stored in the EXIF data, seeing as the camera knows both the focal length and sensor size!

The concept of crop factors (and the term "full frame" which I avoid using at all costs) is only really used by small format photographers - no-one using medium format refers to their camera as having a 0.7 crop factor! Likewise if you were to mount a 50mm medium format lens on a 35mm sensor DSLR, it will act just like any other 50mm lens.

Similarly the minimum focus distance is a property of the lens (and distance to the sensor) and thus doesn't change when you use a different size sensor.

Check more discussion of this question.

Why are the red light and its hood in my image colored different than they were in reality?

Question

I took this image in a train station with shutter speed 1/8 second and AV mode, the aperture was chosen to be 4.5. The problem in the colors of the spotlight in the right corner of the image. In the image, the light is white and the border (the hood) is red — however in reality, the light was red and the hood was black. Why this change in color?

I'm using Canon Rebel T3i with its EF-S 18-55 IS II lens. I'm using Adobe RBG color space.

Answer

The reason is that the red light is a light source, therefore it's much brighter than any other parts of the scene. The pixels showing it are overblown - meaning there was more light coming than your camera sensor could capture. The light is not pure red, it emits enough green and blue light to blow these color channels of pixels too.

The hood is just reflecting light from it. It was hard to see with a naked eye, because the light beneath it was much stronger and the hood seemed perfectly black compared to it. In photo, however, the intensity of captured light is capped by your camera sensor's dynamic range, and you can see the subtle reflection next to overblown pixels.

Unfortunately, overexposed pixels cannot be restored in post processing.

To capture a similar scene with correctly exposed light source, you should take a second frame with exposure reduced to a level where the light source is exposed correctly, and then either create an HDR image or simply use layer masking in Photoshop/Gimp/etc to select which parts of image should come from which frame.

Check more discussion of this question.

What are particular potential problems to watch for when using a telephoto zoom?

Question

I recently got the Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS II lens as a complement to my 18-55mm kit lens for my 550D. I was looking for some advice\best practices for using a telephoto zoom, any associated accessories like hoods that would be useful and any gotchas that I should watch out for. My intended usage for the lens is to shoot stage shows and portraits.

I found a similar query for Point & Shoot cameras

Background

I decided to buy this lens based on the advice to an earlier question I had asked. The lens is fairly light for a telephoto zoom (~400g), and not too large either. However, it is considerably longer than the kit lens. One of the main reasons I picked up this lens was to understand the longer focal lengths better without investing in a high end lens right away (photography is a hobby).

The 70-200mm f4 L IS was one lens I did consider, but that was in a different league - both in terms of price\quality and size\weight. I wish to explore the longer focal lengths before I make serious investments on pro quality lenses - zooms or primes.

Answer

Main thing you have to be careful with is to make sure your shutter speed is high enough for the longer shots to limit blurring due to camera shake. The rough rule of thumb here is it should be at least 1/n of a second where n is the focal length with IS turned off; note this would be the effective focal length so for a crop body you have to apply the crop factor of 1.6 for Canon. With IS on it gets you maximum 3 stops reduction in this but in my experience you should only ever really halve it. One thing to note about IS is that it takes a little time to settle down after activation so when you take a shot half press the shutter button then pause for a second before taking the shot to let the IS settle down.

Outdoors its always a good idea to use a hood because on bright days it lowers the chance of lens flare and also protects the end of the longer lens from hitting things; it does happen and a damaged hood is easier/cheaper to fix than damaged glass. For indoor work extra focal length gives you a lot of possibilities but with a slower lens like this you will have to pay particular attention to lighting. This is why pro photographers go for faster and way more expensive glass like f/2.8 because it makes lighting less of a concern.

Best thing to do is just start using it as it will take you a little time to get used to the weight and balance of the new lens on your camera.

Check more discussion of this question.

How can I achieve the photographic effect as seen in these sample images?

Question

Below are some samples. Is this effect made with an optical filter or is it edited during post processing? In either case, what it is called?

• http://jpgmag.com/photos/3181099
• http://jpgmag.com/photos/3202143

Answer

Here is an example image to illustrate my point.

Before adjustments: After adjustments:

I think what you are looking at may have been achieved with HDR, as I did with my example images. I used Photomatix Pro with 3 source RAW files to achieve this. Outside of Photomatix, I did not process any further. The images that you provided look to have quite a bit of grain, so you could add that in. My original images did not have any filters applied to them.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is it true that there are no stabilized prime lenses (and if so, why)?

Question

Fast prime lenses like the Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens work nicely in low-light situations. But I'm quite sure they would work even more nicely if they had optical image stabilizers. It seems to me that no such lenses are available in the Canon system. Is this true? Maybe even for prime lenses in general? If yes, is there a reason for this?

Answer

As of today there are 28 prime lenses with image stabilization. Almost half (13) of them are from Canon and 1 is a Canon-mount Sigma, so I would say your assumption is wrong. This is an easy lens search.

What you will notice is this is less common in the wide focal-length, with the widest stabilized lens being a 45mm Panasonic. This is because longer lenses benefit more from stabilization because they require higher shutter-speeds to give a sharp image.

Take for example a 500mm which would require 1/500s. This stabilization you can take it down to 1/125 or 1/60 even which is still a general purpose shutter-speed. Now take a 50mm which already gives a sharp image at 1/50s, you can bring that down with stabilization to 1/15 or 1/8 even. Those shutter-speeds are not suitable for moving subjects and even grass and leaves will blur. Now, of course, all shutter-speeds are useful, just that you gain more by stabilizing a long lens than a short lens. As a matter of fact, some people ask why certain wide zooms are stabilized, saying it's a waste of money!

Check more discussion of this question.

How to use a telephoto zoom?

Question

I recently got the Canon EF-S 55-250mm IS II lens as a complement to my 18-55mm kit lens for my 550D. I was looking for some advice\best practices for using a telephoto zoom, any associated accessories like hoods that would be useful and any gotchas that I should watch out for. My intended usage for the lens is to shoot stage shows and portraits.

I found a similar query for Point & Shoot cameras

Background

I decided to buy this lens based on the advice to an earlier question I had asked. The lens is fairly light for a telephoto zoom (~400g), and not too large either. However, it is considerably longer than the kit lens. One of the main reasons I picked up this lens was to understand the longer focal lengths better without investing in a high end lens right away (photography is a hobby).

The 70-200mm f4 L IS was one lens I did consider, but that was in a different league - both in terms of price\quality and size\weight. I wish to explore the longer focal lengths before I make serious investments on pro quality lenses - zooms or primes.

Answer

Main thing you have to be careful with is to make sure your shutter speed is high enough for the longer shots to limit blurring due to camera shake. The rough rule of thumb here is it should be at least 1/n of a second where n is the focal length with IS turned off; note this would be the effective focal length so for a crop body you have to apply the crop factor of 1.6 for Canon. With IS on it gets you maximum 3 stops reduction in this but in my experience you should only ever really halve it. One thing to note about IS is that it takes a little time to settle down after activation so when you take a shot half press the shutter button then pause for a second before taking the shot to let the IS settle down.

Outdoors its always a good idea to use a hood because on bright days it lowers the chance of lens flare and also protects the end of the longer lens from hitting things; it does happen and a damaged hood is easier/cheaper to fix than damaged glass. For indoor work extra focal length gives you a lot of possibilities but with a slower lens like this you will have to pay particular attention to lighting. This is why pro photographers go for faster and way more expensive glass like f/2.8 because it makes lighting less of a concern.

Best thing to do is just start using it as it will take you a little time to get used to the weight and balance of the new lens on your camera.

Check more discussion of this question.

Why there is no Canon 50mm *IS* lens?

Question

Canon's 50mm prime lenses are all non-IS (Image Stabilization) for some reason. Considering the popularity of these range primes, shouldn't Canon be interested in shipping a new, optically improved IS version?

Answer

There are two main reason why there's little chance we're going to see 50mm IS lens in the near future:

• 50mm lenses tend to be very simple and therefore cheap. Complicating its design with an image stabilizer group would push the price significantly higher, while the added benefit of IS wouldn't be that high at 50mm focal length.

• If you want an expensive and light-hungry 50mm, there's already the huge lump of glass that is EF 50mm f/1.2L. There's not much point in having IS in such fast (and relatively wide) lenses.

Check more discussion of this question.

How rapidly does the focal length-equivalent image change by physically moving the camera?

Question

I have recently begun moving from a Nikon APS-C DSLR to the Micro Four Thirds camera while also transitioning from using a viewfinder to using the LCD screen for framing my shots. Because of the size and cost of lenses, I am now shooting with a 14mm (28mm equivalent) lens on the M43 camera instead of the 35mm (52.5mm equivalent) lens on the Nikon. I am getting used to shooting with a wider lens, but I am also curious how my change from viewfinder to screen use effects the actual field of view of the images. Since I no longer hold the camera against my face, the lens is positioned at least 6 inches further forward than it was when using a viewfinder. In other words, rather than going from shooting at 52.5mm to 28mm, I feel like the 28mm lens may behave more like a 35mm lens (relative to my own eyes) due to its different physical position relative to my body.

Do you have any information that can help me better understand the relationship between focal length, field of view, and camera-holding technique?

Answer

I have attempted to illustrate mattdm's answer, and maybe expand on a few points.

---

In this first example, two cameras using different focal lengths are photographing the same scene. They have been positioned such that each will capture the full length of the fence behind the house and trees. Notice how because of the different perspective of the wide-angle camera, the second tree appears partly hidden behind the house.

In this second example, the wide-angle camera has been moved to recompose the scene. Now the arrangement of the composition of the house and nearest two trees looks more like what we get from the narrow-angle camera. But notice that by changing our perspective, we are now capturing a wider view of the background than the narrow-angle camera. The fence no longer fills the entire frame.

---

EDIT:

For a more mathematical explanation of the relationship between focal length (field of view), and scene width (subject size), you might want to check out the answers the question Estimating focal length range required for shooting scenario.

Check more discussion of this question.

Does a larger lens filter size imply more light and better photos?

Question

I'm wondering about 50mm f/1.4 for Nikons. The Nikon 50mm f/1.4D has a 52mm filter size. The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 has a 77mm filter size. There's a lot more glass in the Sigma.

So, does having a larger filter size mean that a lens will collect more light, and therefore produce better photographs?

Answer

No, a designation of f/1.4 implies the same ratio between focal length and aperture in both lenses. So if you're shooting the same scene, both lenses will give you the exact same shutter speed wide open (unless you vary your ISO...)

From what I've read on the Sigma, the larger opening diameter means less vignetting wide open. I haven't observed this first-hand as I don't have either lens.

If you're shooting a crop digital body, this is moot as you're not going to get the corners where vignetting is visible.

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the differences of bringing RAW or JPEG into Photoshop?

Question

Most of my images are in RAW format. When I bring an image into Photoshop, does it make a difference whether it's a JPEG or RAW? I understand the difference between JPEGs and RAW images. I'm just wondering if it is better to bring in a JPEG or RAW into Photoshop, not Camera RAW?

Answer

The short answer to this question is: The raw option is better.

The slightly longer answer is: The raw image data gives you the chance, in ACR, to effectively "develop" the image based on your own desires and do that many times in a non-destructive manner with a lot more data available because it's the base data for the image. Drop into jpeg and you've already started with data being lost, partly a result of the 8 bit image format, but also because jpeg is lossy in compression. So, you've already dropped some color information and you've also discarded some pixels. Not to mention, your start point is what the camera maker decided was a "good" result.

So, seriously, there is no condition in which jpeg is superior to raw when you have the time ans space to deal with the image. The only time I would recommend jpeg is when you won't have the time to post-process, but in the last 4 or 5 years, for me, that has never happened... Your mileage may vary.

Check more discussion of this question.

Does the size of the front glass mean anything?

Question

Considering the Nikon lenses:

Prime lenses:

• AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D ED has a huge front glass (●₃),
• AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G has a tiny little front glass, deep inside the body (∙₁),
• AF-S VR Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED has a tiny little front glass (∙₁),
• AF-S VR Nikkor 200mm f/2G IF-ED has a huge front glass (●₃),
• AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G ED VR II has a huge front glass (●₃),

Zoom lenses:

• AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED has a large front glass (●₃),
• AF-S Nikkor 24-70mm f/2.8G ED front lens is still much larger compared to non-professional lenses of the same range (●₃),

• AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II has a large front glass (●₃).

• AF-S DX Nikkor 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II front lens is much smaller than any of the three lenses above, but, well, it's a DX lens (•₂),

• AF-S VR Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED front lens is small too compared to the lenses below (•₂),
• AF-S VR Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED front lens is again quite small (•₂),
• AF VR Nikkor 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6D ED front lens is pretty small compared to 200mm or 300mm or the 70-200mm (•₂).

I don't see any relation between the size of the front glass and the focal length, focal range or image quality.

If we take only zoom lenses, there would be a link between the maximum aperture and the size of the glass, larger aperture requiring a larger glass. Actually, this is not true, since AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED has a large maximum aperture, but a small front glass. Also, this doesn't work at all for prime lenses, where the lens with the largest aperture has the smallest front glass.

The quality of the lens doesn't seem to influence the size of the front glass neither, at least not for the prime lenses.

So what forces to make larger lenses with larger front elements?

Answer

Generally speaking, a larger front element is necessary to achieve a wider maximum aperture. More specifically, a larger front element helps achieve the necessary "entrance pupil" diameter required for a given lens, provides the necessary primary light-gathering power of a lens, and helps achieve the necessary angle of view of the lens. (The entrance pupil is the diameter of the physical aperture as viewed through the front of the lens.)

The physical diameter of a lens generally must increase as the maximum aperture increases, and once you pass f/2.8, each additional stop greatly increases the physical size of the lens. Additionally, once you pass f/2.8, each additional stop requires a considerably greater amount of light, and larger front lens elements are a key factor in gathering that additional light.

For ultra-wide angle lenses, such as the 14mm f/2.8, a larger lens element is often necessary to assist in capturing light rays from a wide enough angle of incidence, more so than for achieving a wide aperture (14/2.8 = 5mm physical aperture, quite small.)

For wider-aperture telephoto lenses, the physical aperture tends to be much larger, which tends to dictate the size of the front lens element more than the necessity of gathering wide-angle incident light rays. The 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses have a physical aperture of 71.4mm, some 14 times larger than the 14mm f/2.8 lens.

Lenses like the 70-300f/4.5-5.6 and 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 have much smaller maximum apertures for their focal lengths. 300/5.6 = 53mm, some 1.5 times smaller for 100mm greater focal length. A 300mm f/2.8 lens would require a 107mm aperture, which is twice as large as a 300 f/5.6, and would require a much larger front lens element to gather enough light to accommodate such a large aperture. The 80-400mm again has a fairly small maximum aperture at its longest focal length...400/5.6 is 71.4mm again, vs. 100mm for the 200/2 and 107mm for the 300/2.8. The 80-400mm lens has a larger front element than say the 14/2.8 or even a 50/1.4 due to the physical size of its aperture...which even at f/5.6 is considerably larger than any wide angle lens. A 50mm f/1.0 lens would have a physical aperture of 50mm, which over 20mm smaller than the 71.4mm of a 400/5.6 lens.

Check more discussion of this question.

Where to buy used Nikon lenses in the USA?

Question

What are some of the sites available for buying used lenses for the Nikon D-90 camera body? Do any specialize in Nikon or have enough supply to deeply cover Nikon lenses?

Answer

Apart from KEH that MikeW already mentioned, take a look at Grays of Westminster. I found their collection pretty good and complete. It is an exclusive Nikon shop. The shop is in UK and referred to as "The High Church of Nikon". Their website, unlike other online store websites, is very well organised.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is it possible to print a photo so it can be mounted on a globe?

Question

I'd like to transform an image so that it can be mounted on a sphere. I'd like to use an image of a map (see the One Piece world map on the image), but it could be anything. Here is a kind of Family Picnic Photo that I could use, (this isn't my family, is just a Google result). I'd like to do this as a gift for my cousin on his birthday. I'm beginner on photo processing and manipulation and normally I use Linux, but every suggestion is welcome.

I would like a way to transform this image or photo into a "globular" image/photo, to put on something like this:

Is there any software that can do this for me? If not, how would I go about computing the necessary slices of my image to fit?

Answer

IP-Slicer perl script can create slices which can stuck together into a ball. You can define the number of slices.

The following command will create 12 slices, where the sphere circumference is 1500 pixels.

sphere-slicer.pl 12 1500 sampleimage.jpg

Sample input:

Output (12 images):

Check more discussion of this question.

Will long exposure night shots damage my camera?

Question

I've been looking into long exposure photography for star tracking. How does it negatively (if at all) affect your camera?

Answer

There might be some repercussions, especially on very cold or hot nights. Long exposures and continuous use of the sensor does cause it to heat up. This is really not that much of a problem for most modern cameras as they have adequate heat sinks and other features to bleed off heat and prevent too much buildup. (Some newer cameras may even prevent you from starting a new shot for a while if it detects the sensor is too hot.)

On extremely cold nights, you might encounter some trouble with your batteries, as cold tends to reduce their effectiveness and life. Poor current flow can occur during extremely cold or very hot nights, which can mess with the camera's electronics itself. This sometimes manifests as funky menu behavior and the like. I have not seen any permanent damage from such a thing, but I have also never spent a truly extensive amount of time photographing in very cold weather (probably the longest was during a total lunar eclipse which spanned several hours in sub-freezing temps.)

LCD displays perform poorly in very cold environments as well, and can end up damaged due to extreme cold. Most normal cold temperatures won't be a problem, but sub-freezing temps with an added windchill can bleed off every scrap of energy held in a camera, sometimes resulting in dead LCD pixels or possibly worse damage. Normally, you'll encounter problems due to poor battery performance, however if you are doing something like taking a time-lapse sequence of shots over the duration of a whole night, and intend to sleep through much of the night...you might want to pick nights that are not extremely cold. There really is no telling what super cold temperatures might do to your equipment if its exposed for an extended duration of time.

Weather sealed gear is obviously going to hold up better in more abusive conditions, however most sealed gear is only available in the top of the line equipment. Most cheaper gear has minimal weather sealing or resistance features, if it has any at all.

Check more discussion of this question.

Are these ghost light spots and vertical grain indication that my scratched polarizer is ruined?

Question

Earlier, I unfortunately dropped my polarizer. There doesn't seem to be any damage save for a light scratch which I've uncovered only after a very thorough inspection. Nonetheless, I'm worried that there is damage worse than that.

The following feature all the same subject, a Christmas Tree in front of my department's building. This is my first time shooting suchlike subjects so I'm unsure if my polarizer is damaged or if the effects are something I should expect given my subject.

Set-up: Sony SLT-A35 with 55mm lens. Only thing on my lens is a Kenko polarizer.

First look at those "ghost colors" at the top left part of the tree. No matter how I turn the polarizer, they just won't go. But farther away from the subject and it's fine; they don't appear. And yes, I tried removing the polarizer while in this frame and distance and the ghost colors did disappear.

For example: http://chadestioco.deviantart.com/art/Christmas-Tree-Scrap-270316470

Should be pretty obvious what I'm talking about.

They respond to the polarizer the way glare does; that is they decrease/increase in intensity but never go away, at least not at that particular frame.

I have a close-up shot where the ghost colors didn't appear. See "Christmas Lights Scrap 2" in my DA scrapbook.

And then there's another thing that bothers me: some grain in my other shots. I'm not sure what/how they look like to you but it doesn't look like anything ISO-related to me.

Full picture at http://chadestioco.deviantart.com/gallery/#/d4gxt9o . Enlarge/view full image, around lower left of the tree, running from the grass lawn to the sidewalk ledge. Hope you can get what I'm talking about.

This is the most distinct I can find. As far as I've inspected my other shots, they all run vertical.

Also, I have some non-dark shots with my dropped polarizer and I don't see anything troubling with them. See "Front Facing Facade" in my DA gallery.

So, is my polarizer dead? Suggestions as to what I do with it?

Answer

1) extra images are just reflections from the polarizer. How can you tell? When you rotate it, they don't move. Therefore the angle doesn't matter, nor does the scratch matter. When you remove it, they go away. Therefore it must be causing it, but it is not related to the scratch or the angle being polarized.

2) The noise is just electronic noise. The higher you go in ISO the worse the noise gets. You can use noise reduction in post processing to remove it, but this has a price, you'll also loose fine detail and the image can start looking plasticky. You shot at 1600 ISO. Don't do that unless there isn't any other way to get the shot. Try again at ISO 100. Yeah, the shutter speed won't be 1/13, it will be much longer, so use a tripod.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is a 50mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4 a good lens for portraits in low light?

Question

I only have one lens right now. It's the Canon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS kit lens. I think this lens is great when the lighting conditions are right but in low light I usually have to result to flash.

For instance I was taking pictures of people in front if a christmas tree, without flash the tree looked great but since the tree was the light source (and behind the people), the peoples faces were too dark. I had to use flash, which made the tree look not near as good, but you could see the peoples faces better.

I am wondering how I can take better low light pictures like this, especially portraits with the subject in focus and the background blurred with nice bokeh.

I think this means I need a lower aperture. I was looking at these two:

• 50mm f/1.4
• 50mm f/1.8

I would rather buy the cheaper 1.8, but only if it's going to give me something much better than what my current lens can do.

Should I fork over the money and get the more expensive one, or am I looking at completely the wrong lenses for what I want?

Answer

I personally have the 1.8 and my friend the 1.4. Obviously the 1.4 is much better build quality and fairly betetr optically, but the 1.8 is a bargain and still a good lens as long as you don't plan on throwning it around. Also more easily replaced if it breaks. Both give pleasing pictures and both will be better in low light than your current lens... but..

..in your example you give these lenses would not improve the picture in the way you want. The christmas tree would still be the source of light and the people would still be underexposed in front of it. The lenses would both make the ability for faster shutter speeds or lower ISO's, but the lighting ratio in your picture would still be the same.

To get the picture you are after you would still need some illumination on your subjects to expose them better with the tree. As it is dark a reflector wouldn't be much use, so it's more likely you will need to use some flash, but don't put it on auto. Use your camera (I'd prefer in manual) to expose for the tree, and then use the flash as fill light, probably dialing in some flash exposure compensation of -1 or -2 stops so that the light is mostly only lighting their faces and not affecting the already lit background so much.

It'll likely take some tinkering to get the right ratio of lighting that you want, but using a faster lens is only going to mean more bokeh (which will be nice for the tree potentially) and the ability to shoot faster, it won't magically bring your subjects out of the low light whilst leaving the background as it was.

Check more discussion of this question.

How can I improve my food photography when limited to a point and shoot?

Question

Previously I have used a Sony DSLR A580 camera along with its 50mm 1.8 lens to take pictures of food. Personally, I really liked that lens. At the moment, I am back to my old Samsung i8 Point and Shoot Camera and am interested in getting close to similar results like those attained from the Sony for photographing food. There are various presets available in the Samsung, but none of them are as good. Kindly drop in your suggestions that would help me improve my shooting skills while photographing food with my Samsung.

I could not provide a similar image for comparison of both the cameras (as Sony A580 is better than my point and shoot any day), but just presented an idea of what I am trying to capture.

PS: Sorry if the food is mouth-watering. :P

Answer

Actually a point-and-shoot is one of the best tool for taking photos for food.

I usually have a DSLR and a point-and-shoot with me, when I want to take photos of food however, I usually use the point-and-shoot thanks to its macro mode.

Most of us shoot our plate of food top-down, framing the shot so that the whole plate is included.

Sorry but that can quickly become boring after 5 shots.

Macro mode is usually found on point-and-shoot. DSLR on the other hand has very limited macro ability until you actually go spend some money on a macro lens.

That is why I prefer using my point-and-shoot! It can shoot the details! I can focus as close as 3 or 4 cm and get very nice photo of my food. My point-and-shoot has a flip-out screen so I can shoot from all kinds of angle.

I can shoot across the plate horizontally without leaving my chair and ducking by the side of the table. I can fill the entire photo with the actual food showing its texture.

As a bonus, usually its easy to get the food in focus since point-and-shoot has a high DOF.

Trust me, a point-and-shoot is better than a DSLR with a kit lens when it comes to food.

You need to get the White Balance right, and you need to light the food well. The best light is when you are eating right next to a huge and bright window at day time.

At night, however, you must find ways to create a soft and pleasing light, which usually involves the use of an external flash. This is not an option for you it seems so I will just leave it.

You also want to make your food look YUMMY. If it is hot food you are shooting, steam will be a plus. Food when freshly prepared are usually shinny since they are wet or there are oil, so if you leave it for too long it will become dull and it will not look nice.

There are things that you can do to create steam and make your food shinny, two simple ways are:

• light a cigarette and place it behind the food
• using a spraying bottle, spray oil on your food to keep it looking fresh

Of course, these may not be the best thing to do when you are planning to actually eat it, but you can definitely keep in mind and try these out when you are allowed to

Lastly food photography actually is very often fake. Ice cream made of clay.... boiling water is actually ice cold with air bubbles manually pumped into it.... etc

So be creative. Good luck!

Check more discussion of this question.

Would a fixed or zoom telephoto lens be better for learning?

Question

My daughter has a Nikon D-90 camera body and two prime f1.4 lenses 50mm and 35mm. She is interested in learning more, and I am curious which of a zoom or fixed telephoto lens would help her best? Is getting a low f-stop lens important in a telephoto lens?

Answer

It depends on where she's feeling the limitations. I have a kit made up of 15mm, 40mm, and 70mm prime lenses (on a dSLR with the same 1.5× format as the Nikon D90), and for me, that's just about right. (I'd probably trade the 40mm for a 35mm were I starting over — tough call.) For my style, I don't miss having a zoom at all.

Since she has (and is presumably comfortable with) two prime lenses, she may feel the same way, and would just like to increase the range of focal lengths she has available. For that, another prime covering either wider-angle or more telephoto would fit nicely.

On the other hand, she might want to explore the convenience of a zoom. Having flexibility of framing can remove one-more-thing-to-worry-about from the learning process, and remove the potential need to switch lenses in the middle of the action.

Back on the first hand, though, there is a school of thought which argues that prime lenses have inherent advantages for learning composition. Mike Johnston's Case Against Zooms articulates this view well. The idea is that by learning to know a particular prime lens's inherent viewpoint, that limitation actually becomes a freedom.

Since I use my 40mm most often, I can attest to this: having used it to take thousands of photographs over the course of several years, I can know what photo my camera will make without having to actually put it to my eye. That's very useful, and helps me concentrate on taking the photographs I want to take with the view I want to have.

Check more discussion of this question.

What workflow should I use for managing model releases?

Question

Managing and collecting model releases might become a tiresome job, specially for hobby photographers like me. Asking a stranger to sign a paper might become trick in most cases, specially in a 3rd world country where most people cannot read written english. So, is there any effecient workflow for collecting and managing model releases? Do I ask for the sign before or after the shooting session? Also, in case of a complete stranger in a street how do I approach? Do I need to collect model releases for every person I shoot even without knowing whether I will use their image in a commercial way or not?

Answer

Images used for news or artistic works do not normally require a model release. In the first case, it would be unrealistic to expect a newspaper, for example, to get model releases before publishing pictures of a large group of people in a protest. For artistic purposes, there are a large number of street photographers taking pictures of people on the streets for artistic purposes, again without release. Now, in that case, if there was a desire for the image to be used for commercial purposes, such as stock for Getty (which is where I think you're going based on your previous question), they'd be out of luck.

So, for candid photography, getting a model release does give you some additional flexibility in the use of the image, but it's not actually required if the image isn't going to be used for commercial purposes. As for approaching them, well, that's tough... I'd have a hard time with it, I think, but not everyone does.

For actual working shoots, and I've only done a couple, the answer is sign everything before shooting. This includes any model releases, and possibly the buyer contracts, that stipulates the usage rights and other details, including payment. Never do the work until you have all those figured out, it protects you and it protects the models. Don't worry, people modeling for commercial purposes generally expect the release and they won't be shocked by the contents of it.

Check more discussion of this question.

Should I buy a DSLR to get started?

Question

I'm really interested in getting into serious or even professional photography. I've read some articles about fundamental concepts like aperture, exposure, ISO sensitivity, etc., and I want to get the feeling of how changing different setting affects the resulting picture.

My point-and-shot camera has a manual mode but it seems like no matter what kind of settings I select, I always get worse results then if I shoot in auto mode.

Some people claim that manual mode on point-and-shoots is a joke. Should get a "real camera"?

Answer

You might want to try borrowing or renting a camera first. Even the cheapest DSLR will cost several hundred dollars, which can be a lot of money if you aren't sure it is right for you.

That being said, DSLRs now are a lot better than they were in pure auto mode, which can make it pretty easy to jump right in. I went from a P&S to a DSLR not all that long ago and really enjoyed it pretty much right away.

One big consideration when thinking about switching to a DSLR is the pure size of the camera. You will no longer have something you can stick in a pocket or throw in a bag. They are much bigger, much heavier and much more fragile. They are also a lot more expensive to buy, repair and upgrade.

Check more discussion of this question.

What are most important accessories for indoor portraiture?

Question

I am brand new to DSLRs, so please bear with me. We just bought a Nikon D3100. Christmas is coming up; what are going to be the most critical "starter" accessories? Most of our shooting is indoor, portrait-esque shooting. I have asked for everything I could think of on my wish list, but I didn't know how to prioritize. Here's a short list:

• DSLR backback/laptop case (so we only have 1 carry-on for the airlines)
• Eye-fi sd cards (because they just look cool!)
• A directable flash
• A 55-300mm zoom
• Tripod
• Extra Batteries
• Lens Cleaning and maintenance stuff...

Anything I missed?

Like I said, we're brand new to DSLR and I just want to know what's going to help me most right out of the gate. What are the most important two or three things?

I recognize that to answer this question for "me", I'd need to give a lot more details... I want to know from your perspective what you'd ask for.

Answer

Some suggestions and comments, in no particular order of importance.

Lenses

For indoor shooting, a 55-300mm lens will do you close to no good, unless you have an amazingly large indoor area. You'll only be able to use the shortest focal length end (around 55mm), where the quality is most likely the worst. For most of my indoor shooting I use a 35mm prime lens (on a crop sensor like yours). For portraits, 50mm and up is often considered better, when you have the room. I do often use a 70-300mm lens for portraits, but almost always outdoors, where I can get very far away from my subject.

For more general indoor shooting, I would recommend something in the 35mm range, although if you want a zoom lens, maybe something in the 15-70mm range (most Canon stock lenses are 18-55mm, which is great for most indoor shooting).

For a lot of indoor shooting, a very fast lens is also useful, because you're often in poorly lit environments. If you're setting up portraits, though, you'll likely have a lot of control over the lighting, so a fast lens may not be as important.

When I'm shooting at parties, family gatherings, etc, I love the f/1.4 speed of my 50mm prime lens, and the f/2.0 on my 35mm lens. This is the main thing that makes my DSLR outshine all my friends' point-and-shoot cameras.

Lighting

If you're "serious" about portraits, then a directional flash is not nearly as important as off-camera lighting. The cheapest off-camera lighting for indoor portraiture is going to be halogen "work lamps"--the kind you buy at a home improvement store (Home Depot, Lowe's, etc). The problem with this type of lighting is that it puts off a lot of heat, meaning your subject (and maybe you) will be sweating after just a few minutes. You can help this a bit (and the picture quality) by bouncing the light off a neutral-colored wall (meaning white or grey--not blue or pink or yellow, etc), so the light isn't shining directly on your subject. They'll still put off a lot of heat, though, so you'll want to turn these lights off between shots, while arranging your props, etc.

The next best option is to get one or two off-camera flashes. If you already have a directional external flash, it can likely operate as an off-camera flash if you get the right transmitter for your camera. Some newer models (at least in Canon's line up) have built-in flash transmitters. My Canon T3i has one, and I love it. I use it all the time! You an also buy flash transmitters that attach to your camera as your flash does. They can be a bit expensive (US$250 range I believe). And your best results will generally be with two (or sometimes more) off-camera flashes. Just one can work if you like low-key portraiture (which can be a lot of fun).

Tripod

You probably won't ever need a tripod for indoor portraits. You generally need a tripod for low-light/long-exposure situations. People move too much (even when sitting "perfectly still") to use a tripod to shoot them for these reasons. You might use a tripod, along with a remote trigger (wireless or wired) to buy some hands-off abilities. This is most useful when you're dealing with children, and trying to get them to laugh or smile, and need to have your finger on the camera trigger at all times to capture the right moment. It can also be useful when you're forced to hold a reflector or prop and don't have an assistant to help you.

Backdrops

I recommend buying some bed sheets! King Size is best, and just the flat ones. I often pick them up at Wal-Mart for about $10-15 each. Get a variety of colors. If you're creative, tie-dye some, or spray paint them, or throw them in the mud, or whatever, to add extra color/textures. Then use them as backdrops for your portraits. It's also good to have one or two plain white ones that you can use to drape over the back of a chair, or hang on the wall to bounce your lights off of, for less direct/harsh lighting.

Hair clips

Especially if you're ever shooting women, it's good to have some hair clips, to hold back unruly bits of hair. Get a variety of colors, so you're more likely to have one that will match your subject's hair color.

Other props

Stuffed animals, big hats, umbrellas, floor lamps... anything creative that can add to the mood of your pictures. Keep an eye open at garage sales, auctions, thrift shops, for those special funny and odd props. Your new photography hobby is always a nice excuse to buy a giant banana... or whatever else might catch your eye.

Check more discussion of this question.