How can I prevent light spill from an umbrella?

Question

I've been reading Strobist lately and love the moody half-lit-half-dark effect in a lot of these types of photos. I'm a beginner and have a limited equipment budget, so I got a 45" reflective/shoot-through umbrella.

It gives great softness for the really low price. However, I find that I can't get the really dark areas/high contrast in my portraits. I think that this is because the excess light from my strobe is bouncing off my room walls and coming back at my subject. This effectively creates a new "ambient" light source (I've killed the real ambient) that prevents the deep shadows.

What are some good ways to work around this? Bonus points for being low-cost.

Answer

One option is called "bookends"; 4x8 sheets of foam board, hinged together with tape. Leave one side white and use it as a reflector, paint the other side black and use it to eat light.

Check more discussion of this question.

Preventing light spill from an umbrella

Question

I've been reading Strobist lately and love the moody half-lit-half-dark effect in a lot of these types of photos. I'm a beginner and have a limited equipment budget, so I got a 45" reflective/shoot-through umbrella.

It gives great softness for the really low price. However, I find that I can't get the really dark areas/high contrast in my portraits. I think that this is because the excess light from my strobe is bouncing off my room walls and coming back at my subject. This effectively creates a new "ambient" light source (I've killed the real ambient) that prevents the deep shadows.

What are some good ways to work around this? Bonus points for being low-cost.

Answer

Another option is called "bookends"; 4x8 sheets of foam board, hinged together with tape. Leave one side white and use it as a reflector, paint the other side black and use it to eat light.

Check more discussion of this question.

Can a Pentax K-5 record more than 4 GB of video with an SDXC card?

Question

When using an SDHC card, the Pentax K-5 can only record up to 4 GB of video in a single clip. This is said to be because SDHC cards use the FAT32 file system, which has a 4 GB maximum file size. At the highest video size and quality settings, this permits only about 5 minutes of recording in a single clip.

There are suggestions in various forums that the use of an SDXC card (64 GB+) with the exFAT file system will allow recording larger files, up to the 25 minute hard cutoff imposed by the camera. However, those suggestions often seem to be based on logic ("it ought to work that way") rather than testing.

Does anyone know, through actual experience or reference to reliable sources, whether the K-5 can record more than 4 GB when an SDXC card is used?

Answer

No it cannot. It will only write a 4 GB file using the Motion-JPEG codec.

There are a number of cameras which use the AVCHD format and they can often record longer clips because the simply split the video stream into separate files. The K-5 is not one of them.

Check more discussion of this question.

Why is there a big price difference between Instax mini and Instax wide?

Question

I'm looking into buying an instant camera, and I'm thinking about an Instax camera of some kind. However, Instax mini seems to be much more popular than the Instax wide format. However, the price of the film is almost the same (wide is 22 euro per 20 takes, and mini is about 20 euro/20). Also, the mini format support much more cameras (I only found one camera for the wide format).

So I'm thinking, why this difference? Is mini just way cooler; or will they stop producing the wide format film?

Answer

Social trends may play a role here. People seem to have been in love with "mini" for some time, particularly the types who might use the Instax cameras. I think there is also an atmosphere of style around this type of photography, and small seems to be ideal (Polaroid has been hugely popular for decades, and its photos were always fairly small....its an artistic and aesthetic appeal thing, I think.)

From an economic standpoint, if socially people prefer the "mini", that would increase demand for mini-compatible film. That boils down to simple supply and demand, which might be why a box of 20 minis is 20 euro, while a box of 20 wide is 22 euro. Also from an economic standpoint, it can be very difficult to tell why a film might be discontinued, or whether it may be discontinued forever. Fuji discontinued their Velvia 50 for a while, and popular demand for it made them bring it back only two years later, and its still a tremendously popular film for landscape photographers and pretty much anyone who wants rich, warm color from film. Similarly, Polaroid film was discontinued a few years ago, largely for economic reasons...a down economy, considerable increases in manufacturing expense, fewer buyers (even though its still quite popular), and general competitive struggles for Polaroid as a company in general. Its unknown whether official Polaroid film will ever be produced again (there has been some mention of a return of polaroid instant film cameras, but nothing seems concrete), however there are some dedicated and concerted efforts to produce it independently, to satisfy the desires of those who have and still do love the aesthetic and artistic appeal of Polaroid film.

So, one can never say what may happen with any particular type of film, and whether any significant changes may be permanent or not...it all depends on the social trends and economic viability of the times.

Check more discussion of this question.

Will using a micro SD & adapter instead of a normal SD card affect the quality of pictures and video?

Question

I've just bought a 32GB Class 4 SD card from a seller on eBay and he has sent me a micro SD card of the same size and speed instead. Obviously I'm not too happy about this but we are going to Disney Land Paris in two days and I don't think I'll have time to exchange it.

I was wondering if using a micro SD card will affect the quality of pictures and video with my Fujitus Finepix S1850 at all?

Answer

Short answer: no.

Long answer: no. Your Fujitsu point and shoot camera has a much lower throughput than your card's max, so the bottleneck with shooting lots of pictures very, very quickly will be the camera itself, not the memory card. Additionally, there will be absolutely no difference in image of video quality... this is digital after all.

Check more discussion of this question.

Will a micro SD & adapter work just as well as a normal SD card in a digitial camera?

Question

I've just bought a 32GB Class 4 SD card from a seller on eBay and he has sent me a micro SD card of the same size and speed instead. Obviously I'm not too happy about this but we are going to Disney Land Paris in two days and I don't think I'll have time to exchange it.

I was wondering if using a micro SD card will affect the quality of pictures and video with my Fujitus Finepix S1850 at all?

Answer

Short answer: no.

Long answer: no. Your Fujitsu point and shoot camera has a much lower throughput than your card's max, so the bottleneck with shooting lots of pictures very, very quickly will be the camera itself, not the memory card. Additionally, there will be absolutely no difference in image of video quality... this is digital after all.

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the advantages of moving from the Canon 550D to Nikon D5100?

Question

What are the advantages of moving from a Canon 550D(Rebel T2i) to Nikon D5100 ?

I purchased a Canon 550D a month ago with a 18-55 kit lens, even before I could become a pro, I am getting an opportunity to replace it with a Nikon D5100 at no extra cost. Not to mention I wasn't very happy with the photographs output that I got but I wouldn't blame the camera as I haven't explored it in detail.

Please don't compare the Nikon vs Canon ideology, I am interested in comparing only these two models with the same kit lens.

Answer

• D5100 was released in 2011, the 550D in 2010
• D5100 will shoot 4 frames per second, the 55D 3.7 fps
• D5100 has a slightly larger sensor (23.6 × 15.6 mm vs 22.3 x 14.9 mm) and 16 MP vs 18 MP
• D5100 does not have an AF motor, so will not use the full range of Nikon lenses (will only AF with the newer AF-S lenses)
• D5100 has a reticulating LCD (flips out) which you might find useful, or not
• D5100 has 11 AF points vs. 9 for the 550D
• D5100 has in-camera HDR (a cool feature I didn't know existed, not sure how well it actually works!)
• I have read (inconclusive) suggestions that the D5100 has less noise at high ISO (you would need to look on dpreview and similar sites and compare test shots yourself, it's somewhat subjective)

I'm not sure any of these are really vitally important. The D5100 is a newer camera, so you should expect it to be incrementally better than the older 550D.

I would listen to the advice in the comments that you are buying into a system/brand, at least once you buy another lens, a flash etc. Makes it expensive to ditch that to switch back to the other brand. So you are locking yourself in somewhat, so beware of going one way or the other based on a few differences between these two cameras.

Check more discussion of this question.

How would one use filters with the “bulb”-like shape front element lenses?

Question

I am toying with the idea of picking up either the Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 IF ED UMC or the 8mm f/3.5 Aspherical Fisheye lens.

These lenses have a built-in petal-shape hood and a "bulb-like" front element. I came across a few reviews about the 14mm f2.8 lens but all of which mentioned the "unusuall" front element and the if so special lens cap that should always be on the lens when not in use. At least one review says it is not possible to mount front filters on these lenses. Surely, there is a way...

In situations where I would be normally using these lenses I would want to be able to use ND filters. Is there any way to filters to these type of lenses and if so how and what type?

Answer

By default, you are unable to place filters in front of those ultra-wide angle or fisheye lenses.

There are however, 3rd party accessories designed to tackle just this issue:

• Fotodiox Pro. Filter Adapter (145mm)
• Lucroit Hitech Filter Systems

Check more discussion of this question.

Why are there no fast APS-C zooms beyond 55mm?

Question

I am looking to add a longer lens to my current zoom (a Tamron 17-50) for my Nikon D300 (but I believe this question is relevant across aps-c lens manufacturers).

There is just one currently in production — the Pentax 50-135 f/2.8 (which is Pentax mount only).

What is the reason behind this? Is there a physical reason why making a smaller DX alternative to a 70-200 is not be possible? I have seen it mentioned that "beyond 100mm the advantage in making dx lenses is gone", but not sure if this is folklore or a genuine restriction.

Answer

Actually the same 50-135 f/2.8 lens was sold by Tokina for other mounts, but it was discontinued in 2009.

I'd say the primary reason is that there's no significant savings between making a telephoto lens just for APS-C or one that's also good for full frame. In fast telephoto lenses, the majority of glass goes towards achieving the big aperture needed, the smaller image circle won't introduce very significant differences.

Another reason is that since a fast telephoto zoom is an expensive lens, many of the buyers are already considering getting a full-frame body in the future, and would dismiss an APS-C lens. This leaves a smaller pool of potential buyers, meaning less potential profit. Pentax doesn't have to worry about it, since they don't have a full frame body, nor have they announced any plan of making one.

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the best techniques for photographing butterflies in a glasshouse?

Question

I will be going to a glasshouse where there will be butterflies as part of a special exhibition / attraction.

What are the best techniques for taking good shots, assuming that using a tripod might be difficult? I will be using a 100mm macro lens.

Answer

I would definitely bring a monopod. Where a tripod might be difficult to use given space constraints, time constraints, or regulations of the exhibit, a monopod should give you a considerable amount of stability while still being very mobile.

If you are inside of the glasshouse (green house), you should be free to use flash. I would either use a macro flash, or find a way to move your flash off camera, close to the subject, with a small diffuser. That should help increase lighting, which even in a green house is likely to be dimmer than you would really need. You won't need a large light...but a small diffused flash should be perfect for butterflies.

If you are going to be shooting through glass, you'll want to make sure you shoot at an angle that hides reflections. It can be possible to use a flash through glass, especially if it is off camera, but you run the risk of increasing glare and obscuring your subject with reflections. You'll want a fast aperture and higher ISO if there is limited light.

Check more discussion of this question.

Are there any pro wildlife photographers using the Pentax DA* 300mm?

Question

Are there any pro wildlife photographers using the Pentax DA★ 300mm? I have spent a week searching for anyone who is using Pentax kit in wildlife photography and who is getting paid for their work.

Answer

Aditya Panda has touched on it (twice), and finds DA★ 300 quite superb but simply too short for wildlife photography. Unfortunately, the small user base means it's hard to design quality supertele lenses with competitive price. Also, judging current lens lineup and omission of full-frame body, Pentax seems to avoid expensive market niches. So, very likely wildlife photography using Pentax gear will remain challenging in near future.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is a UV filter better for lens protection than a protector filter?

Question

I'm usually very good at getting water/finger marks on lens, so I must use something for protection. Is there any downside of using an UV filter instead of a protector filter?

Example: Hoya HD Protector or Hoya HD UV?

Answer

First, I wouldn't be especially worried about the odd fingerprint, dust mark, or water on the lens as it would take quite a bit to make an impact. To give you a sense, helpfully posted in another thread is this lens which, despite massive damage to front element, still works and does so reasonably well.

Second, there are ways to reduce your incidental contact with the lens such as using the lens hood and ensuring you cap it when its not in use. If you do get something on it, despite that, then cleaning tools such as the lens pen and microfibre cloths will help you remove it. That's if you even notice!

However, if you do get something like a UV filter, which will help with this problem, bear in mind that you still have to clean that with reasonable care or you introduce potential image artifacts beyond what the filter will already do. By the way, the downside really applies to both options in a way, primarily artifacts from light sources appearing in unexpected places. It is, after all, another piece of glass added to your lens.

Check more discussion of this question.

How do non-MFT lenses work on a Panasonic GF3?

Question

I'm thinking of buying a GF3. But the lenses are pricy, so I have to pick my kit wisely. I saw that there are adapters for it, but I'm new to lenses.

• Are there any problems with attaching non-MFT lenses?
• How can I see the image from the lens without a viewfinder? (Is it going to show correctly on the display?)
• Can external lenses be used with Raynox DCR 250?

Answer

You can mount pretty much anything on a m43 system using the right mechanical adapters, but that doesn't mean ergonomics are going to make it a practical option, specially on a camera with limited controls like the GF3.

You view through the viewfinder as with any m43 lens, but will be working in aperture priority mode. You can trigger manual focus assist, which will show you a magnified view of the focus area, but you will have to trigger it manually (unlike manual-focus m43 lenses like some Voigtlander models, where turning the focus ring automatically triggers MF assist).

In practice, using non-m43 lenses on a m43 body is not ideal. It's perfectly OK for landscapes, still lifes and street photography using estimated scale focus, but not anything involving action.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is it possible to set the year instead of a complete creation date in a JPEG?

Question

I use iPhoto to manage my pictures. Unfortunately I have many pictures from the 80s. These pictures are actually slides that I have scanned in during 2008. So my problem is that the creation date of all these pictures is set to the date when I scanned it in. Now I want to set the real date of these pictures. Unfortunately I don't know the exact date, but at least the year.

So is there any function available to only set the year field of a date without a specific date?

I asked this question here, because the problem is not Mac-specific, but a general problem.

Answer

The EXIF specification for JPEG metadata says:

The date and time of image creation. In this standard it is the date and time the file was changed. The format is "YYYY:MM:DD HH:MM:SS" with time shown in 24-hour format, and the date and time separated by one blank character [20.H]. When the date and time are unknown, all the character spaces except colons (":") may be filled with blank characters, or else the Interoperability field may be filled with blank characters. The character string length is 20 bytes including NULL for termination. When the field is left blank, it is treated as unknown.

Which allows for entirely unknown dates, but doesn't have a standard for less-precise dates. You could fill unknown portions with spaces, but I'm not sure which software will let you do that, and more importantly, which software will react badly to reading that, since the standard does not explicitly give that as an option.

I think you have two basic choices:

• Option 1: Guess. Based on the subject matter, put in your best guesses for the date and time.
• Option 2: Chose a clearly-arbitrary value like midnight on January 1st of the appropriate year — YYYY:01:01 00:00:00. When someone looks later, they probably won't think that the pictures were all from some wild New Year party.

The latter can be combined into the former. When I know the day but not the time, I usually set the time to noon: 12:00:00, because this avoids (a large degree of) time-zone ambiguity. (Another unfortunate lack in the EXIF standard.)

Check more discussion of this question.

Does long exposure affect the sharpness of a picture, assuming no camera shake?

Question

Assuming that the camera does not shake during long exposure photography, How does the sharpness of the image get affected? Would it be more sharp, less sharp, or remain the same?

Answer

In a perfect camera with a perfect sensor, sharpness would remain the same. No such thing exists so you have to consider two possibilities with whichever camera you have. The long exposure causes the sensor to heat and increases image noise:

1. Your camera does not like that and therefore applies long shutter noise-reduction to clean things up and you get a less sharp image.

2. Your camera is oblivious to the increase in noise and leaves it there. Speckles caused by noise destroy some fine details but make the image appear sharper sometimes.

Check more discussion of this question.

What Tone mapping settings to go for in HDR Post-processing?

Question

I have just recently started discovering the HDR side of photography and after seeing some really beautiful pictures, I decided to get the tools and perform it myself. While trying to post-process my three different exposure images in Photomatrix Pro 3, I would like to know what Tone mapping settings to go for in order to get the best results. I have tried quite a lot of times, but the image always gets overdone. Any suggestions on the settings are most welcome. I have attached my three images below, just in case someone wants to show me a good example of it.

Thanks.

Answer

Each image is different, so it's hard to say which settings will work. Many people use several HDR programs and try their images on each to see, for a particular scene, which one does the best job. I don't think it's a real science, mostly just fiddling with sliders.

It also depends on what look you're going for. Anywhere from natural, where there's hardly a hint of HDR, to surreal.

Looking at your images, I usually only do a set of three, but in this case I think you may need more, particularly to get more exposures which show your shadow detail. I think the result would be smoother if you'd done 5.

I never got the hang of Photomatix, so mainly use Nik HDR Efex as I thought it had more intuitive sliders and better presets to give me a head start, although the de-ghosting isn't always as good.

Any HDR program is going to have a main "strength" or "effect" slider that will raise the shadows and lower the highlights, so that what starts out looking like a "normal" image with deep shadows and light hightlights becomes more compressed to you can see detail in each. This slider basically takes you from natural to surreal. I start with that to get the overall effect right.

There will usually be a details slider that gives you more local contrast so you can see more detail.

If the image is too dark overall, I would raise the exposure, then possibly have to go back to the strength slider.

Then I would make small adjustments with black and white points or contrast. And finally adjust saturation.

Here is what I came up with quickly, using the "Details Enhancer" method of tone mapping (which is the only one I'm able to get any sort of decent result out of).

I boosted the strength to 100, raised saturation to 65. In "more options", I dropped the white point to keep the clouds from blowing out, and raised the black point a bit to raise the contrast of the image. I also brought up the temperature to warm it a bit.

The foreground is still fairly dark. I'm not sure what you were after.

If you haven't seen Trey Ratcliff's tutorial, it's a good place to start to learn about doing these.

Check more discussion of this question.

What lenses can I use to build a DIY tilt/shift lens for a Nikon DX body?

Question

I've found an awesome description for how to build your own tilt/shift lens (http://www.creativepro.com/article/build-a-tilt-shift-camera-lens-peanuts) that mentions using, for example, a lens for the now obsolete Pentacon 6 format. What other lenses could be used for this purpose? Are there any other concerns than it having to be a lens for a larger format than the target one (DX, in my case)?

Ideally, it would be a lens of great optical quality that you can get hold of cheaply (though I realize that posting this question doesn't really help with that).

Answer

The best lenses to use are those originally created for medium format cameras. This is for two reasons:

-when you tilt or shift a lens, you can end up with part of the resulting photo being black because the lens is not no longer pointed directly at the sensor. With a medium-format lens, you have a lot more play in tilt and shift, because the "image circle" is larger. It allows you to tilt and shift more.

-the lenses in medium format cameras are usually designed to be farther away from the sensor/film than your regular dslr lenses. This means that to get a correctly focused picture with a medium format lens, it needs to be spaced away from the camera. This gives you a bunch of space where you can construct a tilt/shift mechanism.

I would suggest… Mamiya or Pentax 645/67 lenses. They'r readily available (check keh.com) and some aren't too expensive.

Check more discussion of this question.

How can I accurately focus manually on an APS-C DSLR?

Question

My favorite portrait lens is the Nikon 50mm 1.4G. I love the light and what it is capable of. My problem with it is that on my D90 the AF is sometimes horribly slow, and in many cases (mainly low light) I can't auto focus at all. I use AF lock as much as possible, but for many shots I really wish I could just use manual focus. The problem is that I'm usually wrong about whether my subject is in focus or at least completely in focus. So my question is...

Are there any recommendations you can make for training my eye to be sure my manual focus is accurate? Any diopter adjustments or calibrating tools? Any eye exercises to train myself to recognize a true focus?

I know that I would probably have better AF performance on a more expensive body, but for now I think it's good practice to train myself in manual focus anyway. Thanks for any assistance.

Answer

One of your problems is that the matte screen in your camera (this is what you are actually looking at through the viewfinder, it's a semi-transparent plastic screen that sits at the top of the mirror-house, below the prism housing) is designed to give a nice bright useable image through a slow autofocus lens such as your average f/3.5-5.6 consumer zoom. This is good if you are using a consumer zoom, but very bad if you are trying to focus a fast prime lens. The reason is that the extra screen brightness is bought at the expense of focus accuracy - is unable to show you the small depth of field at larger apertures than about f/2.8-ish. In other words, if you look at the image from an f/1.4 lens through this matte screen, the depth of field you see will be that of f/2.8 and not f/1.4. Again, for a consumer zoom this is entirely irrelevant but for a fast prime it is highly misleading. You physically cannot focus a fast prime accurately through such a matte screen; you are just not getting the information needed.

A solution for manual focusing is to replace the default "fast" matte screen with an old-school, coarse-grained one which will show you accurate depth of field for a faster lens, and more "pop" when things come into focus. You may also get a screen with a split-prism center, or one with a prism-ring round the center.

I'm not sure if Nikon offers such alternative mattes for the D90 but third parties might although installation is likey to be a bit more fiddly in that case. The downsides to a coarse-grained matte screen is that it affects light-metering, and that the view from lenses slower than about f/2.8 will be darker (much darker, in the case of an f/5.6 lens) in the viewfinder. The matte does not affect autofocus performance in any way though.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is it legal to stop me from taking photos in temples in India?

Question

I live in India, in the state of Tamil Nadu.

Here, some temples do not allow visitors to take pictures or videos. Is that legal, to stop me from taking photos? So many adventures and lovable statues in there!

Temples are public and are managed by the government. Few temples are privately owned. And I am not a photo seller — it's my hobby.

Can I take photos of people in these public places? Is there any law either for or against my rights as a photographer? When I take a picture of people in public, what should I know?

Answer

Yes. See this site:

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Check more discussion of this question.

How do I identify unknown thread mounts?

Question

A local thrift store is selling a macro bellows with thread (screw) mounts. The mount is not identified. I have a cheap digital caliper. What are the likely mounts that it could be, and how can I distinguish them through measurements?

I know, for example, that there's a nominal 42mm "Pentax" screw mount, but what are the actual measurements that I should expect from measuring male and female mount diameters? Do I need to be concerned about thread pitch?

Answer

At 42mm, the mount could be either M42 (Pentax/Practica/Zeiss) or T-mount. The difference is thread pitch -- the M42 has a 1mm thread pitch (the "wavelength" of the thread, measured from "peak to peak"), and the T-mount has a 0.75mm thread pitch. So, three grooves in three millimeters is M42; four grooves in three millimeters is T-mount (or one of the variations on T, like the Sigma YS).

There's also a slight chance that you might run into an M39 (39mm Leica) mount, but that's vanishingly unlikely on a bellows unit. A bellows is almost useless without TTL focusing (as in an SLR ro a view camera), and the M39 is pretty much a rangefinder-only mount (the exception being the early Leica reflex box that sat between the camera and the lens).

Check more discussion of this question.

What settings should I use to photograph aurora borealis with a WIDE ANGLE F4 lens?

Question

I've tried my first night photography of the stars last week. Most articles I've seen were recommending a fast lens, fully opened, @ ISO 800 and about 20 - 30s exposure, etc. Unfortunately, my only "fast" lens is a 50mm f1.4 which was fine but not as wide as I would have liked.

There is a strong possibility of aurora borealis tonight and I would like to use my wide angle lens (Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0 L USM) With maximum possible aperture of f4, what settings should I use to produce reasonably noise free photo. I would like to omit star trailing if possible.

I will be using Canon 60D

Answer

I could make an educated guess..

Consider this picture, its EXIF data says exposed for 5 sec @ f2.8 at ISO 1600, ignoring the focal length of 14mm. and considering that you said most articles recommend shooting @ ISO 800 using max aperture (in your case f4) you should set your exposure for 20 seconds.
@ISO 400, shutter speed needs to be 40sec
@ISO 200, shutter speed needs to be 80sec
@ISO 100, shutter speed needs to be 160 seconds
but longer shutter speed might cause star trails.
Then again you can set the ISO to 3200 to reduce the shutter speed to 5 seconds.

Assuming the brightness of the Aurora Borealis is the same as in this picture.

I also suggest turning on the custom fuction on the 60D for high ISO noise reduction and Long Exposure noise reduction.

Check more discussion of this question.

What is the EV scale?

Question

I have seen an "EV" (exposure value) scale that's sometimes used to express a camera's exposure settings, or scene brightness. How exactly does this scale work?

Answer

We know that for any scene (really, any light meter measurement) of a particular brightness (and particular sensor sensitivity) there is usually more than one "correct" set of shutter speed and aperture settings. A scene that wants f5.6 and 1/125 will also be correctly exposed at f4.0 and 1/250 and so on.

EV numbers are a way to express the brightness of a scene in a scale that combines the shutter speed and aperture settings into one number -- letting the photographer choose what combination of shutter speed and aperture settings to use. Each EV number equals one stop of brightness, so a scene with an EV of 6 is one stop brighter than a scene with an EV of 5.

The EV values are used generally in the following ways:

• To show the sensitivity of the light meter itself or of the autofocus system. Camera specs will often say that the metering system works from EV 0 to 20, or that the camera can autofocus down to an EV of 1.

• Off camera light meters sometimes have a mode that reports in EV, often with a scale so that the photographer can quickly see what shutter speed/aperture combinations are available.

• Especially with off camera spot meters -- to show the difference in the lightest and darkest part of the scene. The photographer would know if he needed fill light to balance the shadows. This is especially from the film days, where you couldn't judge from an LCD when shooting.

For all the technical details (including the formula), look at Wikipedia's "Exposure value" entry.

Check more discussion of this question.

How to do lighting for product photography of scrapbooking stuff?

Question

I have tried to do some simple product photographing. It is mainly some scrapbooking stuff my wife has produced, like candles and gift cards. Up until now I have been using my Nikon SB-700 for lighting. I bounce the light in the ceiling and I find the light to be rather even. However my wife is not satisfied :(

She wants it to look like this. How do I achieve this result? I have been reading some books and searching the Internet, but still I have not found any good answer to my questions.

I have found a lot of rather cheap lighning kit for product photographing. These usually include some kind of table and some halogen lights. This seems like a good choice. What confuses me is that sometimes there are some cheap studio flash kits that is said to work for product photographing and portraits. So I was thinking; why not use my studio flash with a softbox? It has a color temperature around 5600° Kelvin. I have also found some light bulbs that has a color temperature around 5500° Kelvin. Could I use a couple of them? These cost around $20 each.

All the articles I have been reading explains a lot of color temperatures and little bit on how to setup the lightning. However they do not motivate why.

Could you please help me to sort the things out?

Answer

Product photography requires some way of isolating the subject completely within the shot, and even lighting. For this reason I think you would find a light tent extremely useful.

A light tent has two advantages. Firstly, the translucent sides allow you to use virtually any light source (even, in a pinch, regular household lamps) as they diffuse the light evenly across the subject. Halogen lamps aren't essential by any means.

Secondly, the curved backcloth gives an 'infinity curve' effect to the photo - in other words, you can't see where the bottom ends and the back starts, isolating the subject nicely.

Prices vary by size and location, but they will rarely cost more than $30/€25. If you're on a tight budget, you can even make your own using a cardboard box and cooking paper.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is that Legal to stop me Take photos?

Question

When I take a picture of people in public, what should I know?.

Can I take photos of people in public places? Is any Law there?.

Up Dated Question -

Hi all,

I am living in India,. My State is Tamil Nadu.

Here Some Temples are not allow to take Pictures and Videos. Is that Legal to stop me Take photos. So many adventures and lovable stachu in There.

Temples are public and its managed by Government. Few Temples are Private. And I am not a photo seller Its my Hobby.

Answer

Yes. See this site:

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Check more discussion of this question.

How do I “shoot from the hip” in street photography?

Question

I often hear reference to "shooting from the hip" in street photography. What technique can I use to get candid, yet sharp and focused photographs?

While I am interested in any general advice, the sort of questions I have at the moment are: How do you not make your photography stick out like a sore thumb? What focal lengths, apertures and shutter speeds are appropriate? Do you use autofocus or manual focus?

I am not interested in whether or when shooting from the hip is appropriate. That ought to be the topic for a separate question.

Answer

The idea of "Shooting from the hip" is to be inconspicuous, so as not to change the atmosphere. This allows you to capture the shot as you see it, without interfering with the mood.

• Manual focus, using a lens that has a distance scale.
• f/8 allows you to get a much greater depth of field, so even if your focus is slightly off, you should still have a good shot.
• normal to wide angle, 35mm is a great option.
• rangefinder cameras are often used with this style, because they tend to be much smaller and favor manual focusing.

Check more discussion of this question.

Are “Windows Photo Viewer” rotations lossless?

Question

Can I rotate lossily compressed photos that I view in Windows Photo Viewer without worrying about losing even more information to compression?

Answer

If the dimensions of the image are multiples of 8 (or 16 if chroma subsampling is used) then the rotations are lossless. Otherwise it is not possible to rotate the image without recomputing the blocks i.e. recompressing the image, which is lossy.

The reason for this is that jpeg images are broken up into a series of 8x8 or 16x16 blocks which are compressed individually. Incomplete blocks are only allowed on the right edge and bottom edge. Thus is your image is not an exact multiple of 8/16 it will contain incomplete blocks, which will end up on the wrong edge after rotation.

I verified the above assertion using the version of Windows Photo Viewer that ships with Windows 7. I used two images of colour noise. One image was 256x256 i.e. both sizes multiples of 8. The other image was the same but cropped to 253x253 i.e. neither size was a multiple of 8. Here are the images:

256x256

253x253

I then performed four anti-clockwise rotations, closing photo viewer after each rotation to ensure the image was saved in it's rotated state.

256x256

253x253

There's no need to perform a subtraction to see the difference with the 253 pixel image, it's noticeably darker and muddier!

A diff on the other image looks like this:

i.e. the images are identical, the rotations were lossless.

Check more discussion of this question.

Can the Nikon D700 do automatic bracketing by aperture?

Question

I shoot on a Canon, but I have a special "assignment" tomorrow where I'll have to shoot on a Nikon D700. I'm completely new to Nikons... so I pretty much have 12 hours to get familiarized with it.

The project involves digitizing a bunch of 35mm slides (you know, the ones you put into those projectors circa 1970s). There's a nice mount and everything set up already. The only thing I'm unsure how to do is setting up HDR bracketing. The client would like each photograph to be taken at f/5.6 (or whichever aperture gives the sharpest image), and then one stop up and one stop down.

I know my Canon brackets exposures by varying shutter speeds. Is there anyway to "bracket" by varying aperture? My Canon can do this if I put it in Tv mode but then I can't select the aperture I want — in essence, I'd like to bracket by aperture in full manual mode.

In addition, I don't know if the D700 is capable of doing this but can I set it up to name my files the following way:

IMG_001-1 IMG_001-2 IMG_001-3 IMG_002-1 IMG_002-2 IMG_002-3

etc... where -1, -2, -3 corresponds to different exposures of the same image.

Answer

If you shoot in Manual or Aperture Priority mode, the D700 will adjust the shutter speed. If you are in Shutter Priority, it will adjust the aperture.

It's unusual to shoot HDR with varying aperture, as the changing DOF can cause unwanted effects. I guess DOF isn't really a consideration in what you're doing, but still - if f/5.6 is the sharpest, I would imagine you would use that for all three shots and just vary the shutter speed.

I don't know much about digitizing slides, but I would imagine the dynamic range you are trying to capture doesn't warrant HDR either, does it?

I don't think you can name the files automatically like you want, but you can change the order of the bracketed shots. I think be default it's the metered exposure first, followed by the underexposed one, then over exposed one (assuming a set of 3). You can change this to under-, metered, over if that's preferable.

Check more discussion of this question.

What might cause stuck focus on a manual lens?

Question

So, today I dropped my ME Super. When I picked it up I realized that the focus ring of the 50mm f2 lens attached didnt turn. My question is, what could cause this? Could it be that the threads inside the lens which move the glass about are binding?

Answer

My problem was that the threads that move the elements were jammed. I was lucky as in this lens, a Pentax SMC-M 50mm f2, all of the glass was contained in a unit and a thread moved it back and forth or obtain focus. These threads had slipped and basically they were cross threaded. I would never try this on an autofocus lens or a zoom lens. That would be WAY to complicated. Even with a prime lens it took a lot of adjustment to get the distance scale correct and I couldn't even begin to imagine what a nightmare it would be on a zoom lens. Sorry jrista, a step by step would look like this: Disassemble Repair Reassemble Check focus Disassemble Adjust Reassemble And repeat......

Check more discussion of this question.

What professional level camera would be suitable to a beginner?

Question

I'm new to professional photography. When buying a camera, what are the main features that I could use to make an informed choice?

My budget range is $400 - $600.

What camera you can suggest me?

Answer

One possibility to consider might be a film camera. With a little patience, you can find a truly professional-level film body in the price range you've named. Based on what I've seen from quite a few people who've started out shooting digital, I tend to think that spending at least a little while shooting slide film has some good points. Many people no longer seem to be able to get anywhere close to correct exposures except by trial and error (or just massive bracketing).

I'm not sure I'd actually buy a pro-level body immediately though. I'd consider (for example) an old Nikon FM2 with a couple of decent lenses (e.g., a 50/1.4 and a 135/2.8). This is a manual-only camera (manual focus, manual exposure), which I think many photography teachers would agree is helpful initially to get a good handle on the basics of focus and exposure. I should also mention: the FM2 wasn't what Nikon considered their pro-level body at the time -- but a lot of pros have used a lot of FM2s (and FMs, etc.) to do a lot of truly professional work.

I don't mean to single out Nikon particularly here either: Minolta, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, etc., also made some excellent cameras that are well worth considering. One advantage to Nikon (and Pentax) is that they've continued to use the same mount, so (with a little care in selection) you can continue to use the same lenses on a newer body. With Minolta or Canon you can do the same, but only if you get an autofocus body (Maxxum/Dynax or EOS respectively).

Edit: If you really want to go digital, I'd generally agree with those recommending a used camera. New cameras in this price range are fairly restricted, and and generally aimed at people who have little or no interest in learning anything about photography.

Since you haven't told us what sort of photography you want to do (and may well not really know yet) it's hard to recommend a particular brand or model. Perhaps it makes more sense to outline (at least what I see as) the characteristics of the various brands:

Canon: Canon sells more cameras than anybody else, and they have more lenses than anybody else. Especially when it comes to the longest, fastest lenses, there's no other brand that can really compete.

Nikon: Nikon is the second biggest camera maker. They don't have quite as many lenses available as Canon -- but probably still more than you'll ever use. At least in my opinion, Nikon does considerably better at the widest angle lenses (especially their truly incomparable 14-24 zoom). Nikon currently provides the lowest noise at high ISOs of anybody.

Sony: If Canon excels at the long end, and Nikon at wide angles, that leaves the middle for the number three seller, and Sony seems to have taken that to heart. Their 85mm and 135mm lenses are probably the best you can get. At the same time, their wide angle selection is weak compared to Nikon, and the few long lenses they have are steeply priced. Sony is (sort of) the newest vendor of high-end cameras, and it shows -- they seem to be doing more to try to shake things up and change the rules of the game (some consider this a strength, others a weakness). Their in-body image stabilization means you get stabilization on essentially all lenses. Sony bought out the Minolta camera business, and continues to use the same lens mount, so there's a decent selection of used lenses going back to the mid-1980's. Although their newest designs seem to have improved noise levels, older Sonys were known as rather weak in terms of noise at high ISOs (but also unusually good bit depth, color fidelity, etc., at low ISOs).

Pentax: Some obvious points for Pentax are weather sealing, build quality (especially of lenses -- some people compare their "limited" lenses to jewelry, but I consider that an insult; most jewelry looks clumsy by comparison), compact designs, and some of the best features for the price (and when I say "compact designs", I'm not talking about P&S cameras; I mean their serious SLRs are generally smaller and lighter than the competitors). Like Nikon, they've also continued to use the same mount nearly forever, so you can buy/use lots of old lenses. Like Sony, they use in-body image stabilization, so it works with all lenses -- even old ones that won't autofocus.

I'll stop there for now, but hope that gives at least some idea of (how I see) the landscape.

Check more discussion of this question.

I have a Nikon F60 Manual SLR. What are the digital bodies that I can use with existing lenses

Question

I have a older F60 Manual SLR with good pair of Lenses.
I am looking at buying a Digital SLR, but was advised that my old lenses will not work with the Digital camera as the mounts are different.

Question
Can the lenses used with F60 be used on a Digital SLR?
If yes what is the make and model number [can be Nikon or any other brand, does'nt matter]
Is it possible to buy just the body and not the lenses?

Answer

It is important to note that your old Nikon F60 is not a "manual" camera, in fact it is an Autofocus capable unit, which does have manual controls. The F60 used the standard F mount lenses only, it was not compatible with DX lenses or the like. What that means for you, is that your F-mount lenses are all compatible with all recently made DSLR's that Nikon produces.

What you really might have to be concerned with is if you get autofocus or not. Some entry-level cameras will not have the autofocus motor built into the body, and as such you won't be able to autofocus with older lenses that do not have the motor built in either. To sum up this situation, yes the lens will mount and function, but may not autofocus with the new DSLR body depending on which one you get.

To determine if your lens/body will autofocus or not, this chart may help out: Nikonians.org

Yes you can buy just the body and not lenses, but many of the kit lenses that are available today with DSLR cameras are likely to be of higher quality then the kit lens you received with your F60, and they are offered at a very reasonable "kit price".

Check more discussion of this question.

What is a reasonable formula for depreciation of photography equipment?

Question

I've recently started a company for my photography pursuits and am trying to lay down accounting terms on how will equipment be depreciated to help planning cash flow for sustainable balance sheet.

Perhaps I'm being naive, but I hope the balance sheet would approximately reflect true value of company assets. On the other hand, I would not want to track market value of each item separately, hoping that separating items into categories (e.g. bodies, lenses, flashes, lighting accessories, computer software, computer hardware) and having a depreciation formula for each category would do.

Based on what I've read so far, I'm inclining towards reducing value of bodies 25% a year; flashes and accessories 20% a year; lenses 10% a year. But I could be way off.

How does photographic equipment depreciate over time?

Answer

There are two things here - there's the balance sheet and there's reality:

For the reality part you should plan your cash flow and expenses so you have money for equipment, for example, the top of the line Canon and Nikon DSLRs cost something in the $6000-$7000 range, so if you use them and you replace bodies every 4 years you should make sure to have $7000 per camera extra cash left over every 4 years - depreciation doesn't really comes into play here.

For the balance sheet your government has strict rules about depreciation and if you don't follow them you will get into trouble, those rules that can be simple or extremely complex depending on where you are and how your business is structured - but they generally have absolutely nothing to do with the real market value of used gear.

You have to take care of both aspects, if you don't plan according to your gear replacement schedule with no regard to depreciation you won't have money to replace your gear - and if you don't depreciate your gear strictly according to the rules you can get into really big trouble.

Check more discussion of this question.

Is there any damage that a lens can have that is unrepairable?

Question

Just wondering after I dropped my lens and had it repaired is there any specific kind of damage that would ruin a lens to the point where you'd be better just buying another used one.

I'm specifically curious about mold, as I've heard stories of that destroying lens elements, but couldn't you just replace those elements?

I'm asking this question to help make decisions about cost effectiveness of preventive measures.

For exampe, if mold dmg can be easily repaired then I won't invest in a dehumidifier case for my lens.

Answer

Since lens replacement parts exist and there are people who know how to disassemble and assemble lenses you can say that theoretically there is no damage that can't be fixed -

However in the real world there are kinds of damage that the manufacturers won't fix and even more kinds of damage where the cost of fixing would be more than the cost of replacing the lens.

Everything below this line is second hand information because I've never personally sent a lens to be fixed, I don't guaranty this information is correct and I will gladly edit or remove this answer if someone that has more experience or official information answers.

• I've heard from multiple people who tried to get mold damage fixed and the companies just returned the lens as "can't fix", so I believe it's highly likely companies will not fix mold damage.

• I've also heard of cases where lens companies won't replace broken inner elements, I don't know if this is a general thing or specific to some lens models.

• And finally I've been told that the front element is always replaceable and that it's one of the cheapest things to fix in a lens - I've only heard this from one source (as part of a "why you shouldn't use a protective filter" speech) so I don't consider this information reliable.

Check more discussion of this question.

How do straight edges end up curved in photos?

Question

In the standard model for a lens straight lines in the subject of a photograph will always end up straight. However I have seen a variety of photographs in which straight lines end up being curved, e.g. the horizon tapers down at the edges, or a fence near the photo border is mildly curved.

What could cause straight edges to come out curved in a photograph? I have no idea what cameras were used in these cases, but I am certain they are standard consumer grade cameras (so they aren't fisheye type lenses such as equisolid angle lenses). Believe it or not I have to make computations based around objects in photographs and have no way of accounting for why straight things turn out curved in some photographs. From what I know about optics, this shouldn't happen, but it does, so I am missing something. What is it?

Can anyone give authoritative information about this?

Answer

You only get completely straight lines using a pinhole camera. As soon as you put a lens element in the path of the light, you get the fisheye-like distortion to some degree.

Modern lenses contain several lens elements which compensate for each other to give straight lines, but you usually get a slight distortion anyway. For really expensive lenses you have a very small distortion, but it's still there.

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of grids vs. snoots for light control?

Question

Both are, in general, used to control the area that's lit.

What are the relative advantages and disadvantages of both? When would you prefer one over the other?

Answer

In general snoots give more gradual falloff than grids. Grids are effectively a collection of very tight snoots next to each other, as a result they spill much less light at the end and give you a more direct narrower beam. They are used when you really need to control the light to highlight an object/detail and restrict it to a specific area.

In addition to differences in the quality of light, shoots are much easier to manufacture in an emergency from objects you happen to have to hand!

Check more discussion of this question.

Lost photos on my SD card while shooting with Nikon D80

Question

I spend a day in and around Verona, Italy past weekend and was shooting around with a lent Nikon D80. I used a 2G SD card for storage. I was shooting FINE/L JPEG photos. When it got to 161 photos before it was full I started getting a CHR/CHA (since it's digital display I can't really say whether it's an A or an R) reding on the mono display. Anyway. It was blinking and after every shot the number increased back from 160 to 161 so I realised that something has been going on.

I tried replying my photos but camera wouldn't show me anything. Anyway. For the last 30 minutes of shooting I changed SD card to at lest be able to continue shooting but the shocker came afterwards.

When I inserted the SD card in my computer it started behaving badly because I wasn't able to get any photos off of it. When I tried to do a disk error checking, it dis something quickly and now when I try to put the card it it says it needs to be formatted before it can be used.

I'm afraid all my photos are now lost.

I wonder whether you're ever experienced anything similar? Which camera did you use and were you ever able to recover those photos you've taken?

It wasn't something so very important but I wonder what I would do if I took some photos of something I know I'd do only once in my life like a super special vacation somewhere and then loose all photographic memories?! I hope this kind of thing never happened to any of those wedding photographers. What an embarrassing moment that would be! Saying: "Would you please do the whole day again please, because I lost your photos?" is probably out of the question.

Answer

Making this an answer by request. This post is basically a duplicate, although that's not necessarily a terrible thing.

Earlier questions are:

• Recover deleted photos from an SD Card
• Recover photo files in corrupt-filesystem CF card

Check more discussion of this question.

What 3D lenses are available for a Sony NEX camera?

Question

I currently have a Sony NEX-VG10. I would like to know if it's possible or worthwhile to get a 3D lens for it? I did a google search and can't seem to find any — or am I blind?

Answer

It's certainly possible; your camera has E-mount; you could use adapter for A-mount lenses together with a 3Dstereo lens. Perhaps slightly more known is Loreo 3D lens, that comes in Sony/Minolta A, Canon EF, Nikon F or Pentax K mount and could be used with adapter for that mount. Or, you could combine an adapter for four-thirds and Panasonic 3D lens.

As for if it's worthwhile - only you can decide that. You can search for results others have achieved and think if it could be a worthy addition to your images/videos. Some find that a special camera (such as Fuji FinePix Real 3D W3) does the job better, mostly because the distance between lenses is closer to human vision, you have live preview of the result, control over zoom and aperture, and you have full resolution for both images.

For 3D photos of still scenes, an alternative is to attach your camera on a focusing rail on top of a tripod so that it can ride sideways, and using manual mode and manual focusing (for making sure nothing changes between frames) to take separate frames for left and right image, and post-process them into a 3D image.

Check more discussion of this question.

Recommended photography magazines

Question

What are some internationally available magazines on photography that you would recommend to a photographer who's mastered the basics and is interested in widening his horizons, in terms of inspiration and technique?
Personally, I'm looking for something that does not focus on post-production or aquiring expensive gear.

Answer

I agree w/Staale, and to add to that, avoid any magazine that devotes an inordinate amount of space to gear reviews and advertising... well maybe keep one gear one around cuz they're fun to read :) But for mags that I actually derive inspiration:

• photo technique: great photography, great tutorials and very informative in both inspiration and actual technique
• Aperture: More of an 'inspiration' entry, its all photographs and artist's discussion on what they're doing and why
• B&W: Similar to Aperture but focusing solely on B&W

Check more discussion of this question.

When should one turn off their DSLR?

Question

I spent a good hour today moseying after some azure-winged magpies. We had a nice waltz across a parkland, they rarely letting me get close enough to even contemplate a shot. As such, I spent long stretches (~10min) with my Nikon DSLR on but not in use.

And then I began wondering about power drain in such situations (switched on but untouched), and how different that status actually was from off, and after what period of time it makes sense to go ahead and switch the camera off?

Answer

It really depends on the model but modern cameras are very good at saving power during sleep mode.

Sleep mode however on most cameras consumes some non-negligible amount of power, so if you wanted the more battery-life then turning it off is better.

Even better than off is to remove the battery as some cameras, particularly Nikon DSLRs, use power even when off.

That being said, most DSLRs can last for days if not longer in sleep mode, so I would not really worry about it unless you went somewhere without access to power for days.

Check more discussion of this question.

What can tall photographers do about tripod height?

Question

I'm in the market for my first tripod, and have noticed that they generally top out around 175cm(5'8") tall. I'm 200cm(6'6") tall, and while there aren't many people taller than me, there are some.

What do other tall photographers do?

• Suck it up and hunch over, as we must for most things in life? (cars, doorways, kitchen counters, etc.)
• Customize your own tripod?
• Find a boutique "big & tall tripod" retailer?

Answer

There are quite a few tripods that are taller than you (without a head), and many more that would come to eye level comfortably with a head. Brands include Benbo, Benro, Berlebach (wooden), Cullman, Davis & Sanford, Giottos, Gitzo, Induro, Kowa, Linhof, Majestic, Manfrotto, Slik and the 3-Legged Thing. Some of those you would need a stepladder to use at their full extended height. If you're a studio shooter, most camera stands go to eight feet (240cm) or higher. To go shopping, I'd suggest using the B&H Photo and Video site and it's excellent search filters. (You don't need to buy from them, but their site is probably the best way to find out what you want to buy.)

But that's not the whole story in any case. I'm not particularly tall (5'9"/173cm), and while I have used the Benbo 2's full reach (253 cm without a head) out in the field and spent some time on a ladder with studio camera stands, that's not the normal state of affairs. Hunching, crouching, kneeling and lying down are. That's not because of the height of the camera support, but because the subject demands it. One of the pleasures of working with real fashion models was that they were some of the few people I could shoot even part of the time from anything like a standing height (take somebody who stands a little taller than me, then add heels, and I'd barely have to bend to get down to a good level for a 1/2- or 3/4-length shot -- but I'd still have to bend). You can always put people on risers, of course, but landscapes are rarely cooperative in that way (and there are Laws of the Universe stating that the best angle for a landscape will always be something other than your normal standing point of view; like the time of arrival at a restaurant, it is a recipriversexcluson).

So yes, you can find a tripod that will let you work comfortably, but you'll find that comfort and photography are almost mutually exclusive.

Check more discussion of this question.

How does the Nikon D40 decide which focus location to use?

Question

How does the D40 decide which focus location to use? It always seems to choose the wrong focus area.

Answer

There is a pretty good, in depth article about this at kenrockwell.com.

Essentially, it tries to use the closest subject it can find without extra help from the photographer.

Check more discussion of this question.

Can the default file name on Nikon D40 be changed?

Question

Is it possible to change the prefix of files on Nikon D40 to something different than DSC_? What about later entry-level Nikon models?

Answer

No.

No it is not possible to change the file naming scheme on the D40. Very few cameras can do that but many importing software can rename on import. Lightroom for example gives you lots of choices such as sequential numbering, date-time, etc.

PS: stackexchange software says that I should use 15 characters at least to say no :)

Check more discussion of this question.

What does it mean to “mount” slide film for processing?

Question

I just finished my first roll of a 35mm slide film and it is time to get it processed. I checked few places online and the options are to get them processed "mounted" or "unmounted".

So what do these places mean by mounting a film for processing and how does it change the quality of final output?

Answer

You can have slide film processed like normal film, left in long strips, or more commonly they are individually cut into single frames and mounted in a cardboard or plastic holder, which keeps them flat, and these mounted slides can then be put in a cartridge of a slide projector. The mounts can be seen here.

The processing is exactly the same, so no difference in quality. The mounting is done after the film is processed and dried.

Check more discussion of this question.

Are there any downsides to use a 2x extender?

Question

What are the downsides?

Answer

In general this is what you can expect for using a 2x extender:

1. Lower max aperture — which may cause your camera's AF system to stop working, or at least perform worse.
2. Darker view finder
3. Loss of sharpness, especially at the corners
4. Loss of color contrast
5. Increase in color fringing and chromatic aberrations.

The effects of the optical degradation will depend on the lenses you pair the 2x with. Also, some Canon lenses aren't directly compatible with the 2x TC, though there are "mods" that will allow it to work with many lenses.

Check more discussion of this question.

How to elimitate light leakage in my Zenit-B SLR?

Question

This question is related to Why is there a strange white spot on all of photos from my Zenit-B SLR?

I found that the problem is in the shutter. When it is cocked left shutter blind looks like that (the right one that is used while shutter is not cocked is fine):

Front view of shutter. Note that the special opaque coating (looks like a thin rubber) is dried and damaged at the right side causing a light leakage.

That's why I get strange white spots on my photos. Now the question is how to repair it. Shutter replacement is not an option (I don't think that they are still produced).

I need something dark enough to block light and flexible enough to not to affect shutter operation.

Black marker didn't help (pretty naive, but some people advised it, had to try). Heared about glue with black ink. Any other suggestions?

P.S.: I know that in general case it is easier to buy new Zenit rather then repair it. But this breakage seems able to be easily fixed and this camera is dear to me as a memory.

Answer

Ask around in your local photo forums, perhaps someone has another Zenit-B (or its successor Zenit-E) for sale/giveaway; if you intend to use your existing lens, note that they usually came with M42 mount, but some were with M39. For example, a quick search in an Estonian forum found two recent offers, for 8€ (body+lens) or 5€ (body+leather case). That's less than I'd expect materials plus time for repairing be worth. On eBay, Zenits seem to be overpriced given how widespread they once were.

When buying another one, you can still keep your original Zenit as a memento - "the old dear camera". When trying a DIY fix, you might append "... that I clumsily broke" to that. Zenit isn't exactly designed to be serviceable by user.

To me, the holes in shutter fabric tell that the shutter material has become very fragile over time, and trying to attach some fixing materials might make it much worse. But that might be just me, I've never appreciated sock darning either. If it were my camera, and I'd choose to fix/kill it instead of keeping as is, I might try using something like black rubber spray to paint over the holes. I'd try on some other fabric first to see if it gives me a thin but strong layer.

Check more discussion of this question.

How can I see the amount of shutter actuations for my Canon EOS 350D?

Question

I have a Canon Digital Rebel XT (otherwise know ans the EOS 350D). I'd like to find the number of shutter actuations.

I have tried ExifTool, and the ShutterCount is not part Exif information for a Rebel. FileNumber is though. For one of my latest .jpg files, the FileNumber was 425-2556. Does that mean I've used 4 million files? If I took 1000 pictures a day for a year, that would be 365,000 files. So 4 million files would be over 10 years worth.

Answer

I am not aware of any available software that would give you the shutter count for Canon 350D.

I have used before EOSInfo Utility but I am afraid it only supports 40D, 50D, 450D, 500D, 1000D and 5DmkII. I tested it on 40D and 450D and it worked fine. Based on the notes on the EOSInfo website it seems that this information is not available for other models

The shutter count information is available only on Canon DIGIC III/IV DSLRs except the 1D* series. This means that EOSInfo will display the shutter counter for the 40D, the 50D, the 450D, 500D, and the 1000D. It will also show the shutter counter for the 5DMkII, but the camera must be power-cycled before the value is updated. The shutter counter will not be displayed (or will be displayed as "0") on the 1D*, 5D, 10D, 20D, 30D, 300D, 350D, and 400D. It's not that I have anything against the owners of those cameras, but simply that the Canon SDK does not support retrieving the shutter count for them. UPDATE (08/06/2009): Apparently, Canon has removed the facility for checking the shutter count on the 500D. More news when I learn something.

I am not sure if this refers to the EOSInfo software or the availability of that information in general

Check more discussion of this question.

How do lens prices compare for Nikon and Canon?

Question

I am about to buy a new DSLR and shortlisted the two models, Nikon D5100 and Canon 550D. I ready to buy the Nikon model(more expensive) but learned that Nikon lenses are much more expensive than Canon lenses, is this true? I compared the cost of 50mm prime lens from Canon and Nikon and noticed that the Nikon prime lens with motor is almost twice as costly than the Canon lens. However there was a manual focus lens that was of similar cost as Canon. This was very disappointing to me.

Are Nikon and Canon equivalent lenses with built in autofocus motor priced differently? Lens costs are important for me so I wanted to confirm this.

I also have another question :From the Pics that I have seen on Flickr it seems that Nikon Pics have more saturated Color than Canon. Is it true? Will it be possible to take similar Pics from Canon 550D?

Answer

I suspect that much of the reason for the AF lens price difference boils down to this: Canon has always had autofocus motors in their EF-mount lenses, there never was an EF mount camera with a built-in focus motor. As such, they have a lot of really old AF lens models still in production, like the 50/1.8.

Nikon, on the other hand, has always had autofocus motors in their camera bodies. As such, their old lens designs, while as cheap as equivalent Canon ones, do not have built-in AF motors. (No need for one, they could just use the AF motor in the camera!) However, the consumer-level Nikon camera bodies made in recent years do not have built-in AF motors. And it was only when this happened that there was any reason for Nikon to start making lenses with AF motors (excepting some pro-level lenses that had built-in focus motors for added speed and low noise).

In other words, for a Nikon lens to have a built-in AF motor pretty much guarantees that the lens is a pretty recent one. A similar Canon lens can easily be a twenty year old design that is still in production. And new lenses are more expensive than old lenses, that is just how it is. If you compare the price on a recently designed Canon lens, like the 24/1.4L mk II, with the equivalent Nikon lens, the price is not all that different.

There is an upside to having a recently designed lens though: It is likely to behave somewhat better on a digital camera than an old one that was designed to be used with film. So you do get some benefits for the extra money.

Check more discussion of this question.

Should I get the prime or zoom kit lens with the Panasonic GF3?

Question

I'm new to lenses, because currently I have the fixed lens Olympus XZ-1. I'm thinking of an upgrade, and I find the Panasonic GF3 very good. It has the option of two kit lenses: A pancake lens at 14mm f/2.5, or the 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6.

I saw that the bigger (14-42mm) lens has a 3x zoom, which isn't anything special and the 14mm has F2.5 in comparison to F3.5 of the 12-42mm lens. Which should I choose? Are those the only differences, -1.0 of F and 3x zoom? The 14-42mm is way bigger, and if that's the only difference maybe I'll stick with the smaller 14mm lens.

Also I am thinking of getting Raynox DCR250 to take macro shots.

My main questions are:

• Is the only difference the zoom and the maximum f-stop?
• Which one is better to use with the Raynox to make macros?
• Which one is better for landscape photography?

Answer

I will present the "quick and dirty" version of my answer, because I could talk on this topic for pages and pages. Essentially the 14mm f/2.5 "pancake" is a prime lens, which means it does not zoom, it has one fixed focal length. So instead of zooming in and out to frame your subject, you have to move your feet along with the camera! The fixed focal length usually comes with a few advantages such as:

• Large apertures that zoom lenses do not have
• Very high quality optics due to easier manufacturing of the single focal length
• Size can be a huge advantage, and only primes can really get the "pancake" form factor

The other option you are looking at is a general purpose zoom lens. The 14-42mm is equivalent to 28-84mm angle of view in the 35mm format, which is handy to know when comparing it to something like your old Olympus XZ-1 6-24mm, which had a 28-112mm 35mm equivalent angle of view. So the easiest way for you to compare the lenses on the two cameras you are considering is probably the following when considering the field of view:

• 14mm "pancake" = 28mm field of view
• 14-42mm = 28-84mm field of view
• 6-24mm = 28-112mm

Someone else will likely chime in and explain how I forgot a few important details when explaining focal length conversions and field of view, but this is the simplest way I can explain it to you that I hope will make sense to a beginner. What is important to understand, is the "field of view", in that, the pancake lens will look just like your current Olympus zoomed all the way out. And the 14-42mm standard zoom will look almost like the Olympus - but will not let you zoom in quite as far.

Other things to consider as you suggested, is the maximum aperture. This is how much light the lens will let into the camera, and is very important. The larger the better. f/2.5 is the maximum the pancake lens will allow, and f/3.5 is the maximum the standard zoom will allow. Your old camera had a maximum of f/1.8 which is larger then both of these Panasonic lenses. Both zoom lenses have variable maximum apertures, so as you zoom in the maximum aperture becomes smaller, which is not a great thing. The prime "pancake" lens has only one maximum aperture since it does not zoom, which is a good thing.

I hope this helps shed a bit of light on what to purchase. In the end the choice between a prime lens and a standard zoom is really up to you, the user. I would say that the majority of people end up with a standard zoom at first, and as a second lens they may choose a prime, but this may not be the correct choice for everyone.

Check more discussion of this question.

What is the “Dust-Off Reference Photo” on a Nikon DSLR?

Question

I have seen this in my D700 menu and just saw it again on Nikon's tech sheet for the new D4. Is this the same tech that Minolta is using to clean their sensor of dust or is it something else? How does it work and what does it do?

Answer

No it's not for cleaning dust off the sensor, although there is an anti-dust feature that basically shakes off dust.

The dust-off reference feature has you take a shot of a featureless wall, piece of paper, overcast sky. You load that image into Capture NX2 software, and it then determines where dust spots (darker areas) are, and it then can automatically fix those areas in future images you take.

It would be nice if cameras could do this processing in-camera, but I'm not aware of any that do.

Check more discussion of this question.

How do you reconcile generally positive user comments with negative comments in a review?

Question

My question was prompted by this DPReview review of the Nikon DX 18~200mm, wherein on page 3 the author reveals some significant sharpness and distortion issues, leading to final assessments of

Pronounced distortion across much of the range

and

Extremely soft at 135mm

These seem like major problems to my beginner eyes... yet one can find many, many satisfied owners around the internet, see B&H's store page to give one example.

These two realities - that of the carefully tested review and the cumulative experience of the masses - seem quite difficult to reconcile in this particular case.

If we assume the reviewer is competent and the lens tested is representative of the model's performance at large...

• are the reviewer's standards out of touch with all but the most serious photographers?
• or is this subtle, widespread (perhaps even subliminal) buyer's remorse performance bias based on the relatively high cost (for DX) of this lens?
• something else entirely?

Answer

• The reviewer may have used a sample of one. Lenses will vary.

• The reviewer is measuring scientifically in the lab, pixel peeping using test charts and compiling MTF curves. Owners of the lens are taking vacations shots and pictures of the family dog.

• the reveiwer has experience with a number of other lenses, including pro lenses. Owners of the 18-200mm? It may be the only lens they own.

• the reviewer is measuring 1% distortion that most users will not see in real life images. Most wouldn't know what pincushion distortion is, or notice it unless you pointed it out. I have the lens and distortion is only noticeable to me in shots of brick walls or skyscrapers, and photoshop corrects it anyway!

• the reviewer is using test charts meant to expose any weaknesses in the lens. An owner of the lens is just taking pictures in real life situations and probably can't tell which images were taken with the 18-200mm and which were with the 50mm prime. I can't, not in terms of sharpness or distortion.

• the reviewer is judging the quality of the lens vs cost to arrive at a overall value relative to other lenses. He will no doubt think it's pricey and may judge that you could obtain a better value (either sharper or less expensive). But an owner of the lens has already paid (or overpaid) and paid the credit card bill and they're not concerned about how it compares on a test chart against another lens. They're taking pictures, and able to zoom to 200mm or out to 18mm and catch shots they wouldn't get if they had to switch lenses, or left the other lenses at home.

• I would also wager than 90% of amateur photographers don't know about or care about vignetting or chromatic aberration either. Even the trendy bokeh is probably not in most people's vocabulary :)

I bought the lens expecting it to be reasonably sharp, but mainly versatile and convenient, for a walk about lens. It's amazing that a super zooms exist IMO, much less that they are reasonably sharp. If I had experience using professional lenses, I might feel this lens was a bit soft or slow. But hey, it's basically a kit lens. Most of the people buying these are not pros and not interested in test charts.

What he says about distortion is probably true of all samples. Not sure about the softness at 135mm, I've not noticed it, and other reviewers like Thom Hogan didn't mention it. To be honest, I use the lens mainly between 18-50mm, and occasionally zoom out to 200mm to get some detail. I would rarely use 135mm.

I have done basic testing of my 18-200 at 50mm f/8 and compared to my prime 50mm at f/8. I didn't use a proper test pattern, but some newspaper. To my eye they were almost the same. The prime had a bit more contrast, and slightly sharper. If it had been a normal picture of a landscape I don't know if I could tell them apart to be honest.

As much as I love the my 85mm prime and a few others, if I could only own one lens I guess I'd stick with the 18-200mm for versatility. For that versatility it's worth the price IMO. So I'd give it a good review, but if I worked for dpreview and had all the gear to measure it against a database of other lenses, I might be more lukewarm in my assessment.

Check more discussion of this question.

Do the preset picture styles also affect the White Balance?

Question

I started shooting RAW with my Canon 550D, and tried out different Picture Style settings on some of the images using the software provided by Canon (I am assuming that the Picture Style settings are consistent with those in the camera). The Picture Style seems to contain only settings related to Sharpness, Saturation, Tone and Contrast.

However, when I switch across different styles, the white balance seems to change as well even though the preset styles seem to differ only in sharpness. E.g. the Portrait style appears warmer than the Standard and Landscape styles.

So, do the preset styles have any impact on the white balance? Also, are there any differences between the camera & computer software styles?

Answer

There are some key differences between a picture style and a white balance setting. While both can affect white and color balance, simply because of the nature of color, the two are intended for different purposes.

Picture Styles affect the baseline curves applied to the image when interpolating the raw bayer pixel information into RGB pixels for viewing on a screen. Picture style curves attune each color channel, introduce stronger contrast over the raw luminence and color information. Its very similar to tweaking the RGB curves in Photoshop, only processing RAW sensor data (individual Red, Green, or Blue bayer pixels) rather than full RGB pixels. The goal is to tune color balance. A classic Color Checker card will help you see the differences between various picture styles, and you can compare the results of a photo of such a card with the card itself or a computerized version (only valid on a properly calibrated computer screen) to see how picture styles affect color balance.

White Balance settings affect the color axis shift of an image. These shifts are primarily along the blue/orange-yellow and green/magenta axes, which are fundamental axes of color theory and human color perception. Most lighting that illuminates a scene is black-body lighting (light produced by dark materials that emit light as a result of being headed to anywhere from 2000 to 20,000 degrees kelvin), so the primary mode of adjusting white balance is shifting the white point along the blue/orange-yellow axes. Some forms of artificial lighting, namely flourescent lighting and CFL bulbs, produce light by running an electric current through a gas. Such lighting often introduces a slight magenta or green tint, and these tints are corrected by shifting the white point along the green/magenta axes.

Both adjustments, tuning RGB curves and moving white point, affect both white balance and color balance, however each affects one much more than the other. A landscape picture style, for example, might introduce a bit more of a green shift in white balance, while enhancing blues and greens from a color balance perspective much more. Correcting the slight green in white balance due to choosing a landscape picture style will affect the overall color balance of the photo as well, however the impact will usually be minor, and the final results are usually still acceptable.

Regarding the subtlety of the changes affected by picture style, thats to be expected, as the differences are fairly subtle. Usually, taking a picture of one single scene with different picture styles will only produce minor differences. On the other hand, taking a portrait with a portrait picture style, and a landscape photo with the landscape picture style, will usually produce better results for those types of photos. The intent of a picture style is to enhance the important color elements of a certain type of photo. Using landscape on a portrait photo probably won't produce anything particularly intriguing beyond a neutral or standard style, while using a portrait style should produce noticeable, even if its only slightly noticeable, improvement in skin tones.

Check more discussion of this question.

Why does the camera default to ISO 400 in auto ISO mode with flash?

Question

I've observed this behaviour on my Canon 550D, and I was wondering why it didn't use a lower or even variable ISO. I'm not sure if this is a camera/brand specific setting.

Is there any particular reason for this behaviour? Are there any scenarios where a different ISO is chosen, as I have not encountered it so far?

Answer

While the specific value chosen will be brand-specific, you're right that this is common behavior. My Fujifilm point & shoot favored ISO 800.

Increasing the ISO from 100 to 400 doubles the effective range of your flash, which is important with a relatively-anemic built-in flash. It also means that half of the flash power can be used for a subject within the normal range, saving battery life, decreasing the time it takes to be ready to flash again, and shortening the duration of the flash pulse to better freeze motion.

Another approach would be to increase aperture (more open; smaller numbers), which would have a similar effect, but would reduce depth of field. That means focus has to be more dead-on, and is generally not what auto-exposure modes are programmed to go for unless they have no other option.

I don't know the specifics of the auto-ISO logic in your camera model, but I wouldn't be surprised if it favors keeping ISO at around 400 and only increasing it only when there's not enough flash power.

When I'm using off-camera flash, I usually set ISO manually, but I generally default to around 400, just like your auto mode. This gives me a lot of flexibility in aperture, and even though my camera isn't the latest sensor generation, that ISO is clean enough that I don't really worry about noise.

Check more discussion of this question.