The Photography Thread

[Doombear]

I love LR. I don't have a lot of noise to deal with the way I shoot, but I sadly do have a few hot pixels on longer exposures. LR corrects those flawlessly. I find it is absolutely essential to the way I like to catalog my work as well. Keeps me from going insane when I have 1000s of photos in my backlog to sift through.

[Fhqwghads]

Yup, LR is awesome. Here's an example of before/after a brief session with LR. Original image was taken on a Nikon D70 with kit lens. Lighting was horrible and subjects were in constant motion. Had to crank the ISO way up, and the DX format just did not hold up well at all. LR helps out a ton and makes an ugly photo into something a hell of a lot better.

Before:


After:


Applied lens profile, tweak the exposure a tad, white balance adjust, a touch of tint adjustment, and a lot of noise reduction. Tried to be as aggressive as possible with NR without blurring the crap out of the photo.

[zoobernut]

Yeah playing with LR 4 beta right now on my photo and the biggest thing I notice is the noise reduction has a tendency to blur details out pretty fast. I just have to find that happy medium between less noise and detail retention. That is a good example Fhq.

[Headspace]

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7149/6...c3e72d7b_b.jpg

Took this a few weeks back at the Georgia Aquarium.

[Jak]

I'm not sure how often cameras are updated, what's considered a "good camera", I know nothing of lenses or what to look for, so here are a few questions I have..

I was using my friends Canon Rebel (not sure what model, just know he paid $700 for the camera, a few lens, and a bag) and was absolutely amazed at the clarity and how "professional" my pictures look. I say "professional" because it's my first time going out just to purposefully take photos of people and yet came out really good.

Now that I'm looking for a camera of my own to play with, I need help.

I'm looking at purchasing a camera (with no extras, just base camera) that wouldn't exceed $500.00, a bag to carry it and extras in, and I'm needing extra lens that would make for good fairly up-close picture taking of people. I have NO clue how to even begin looking which is why I've come to this thread for help.

Feel free to PM me if you wish. Any help would so greatly be appreciated!




And here is a watered down picture I took of myself with said camera of friend. The quality has been reduced though thanks to facebook. :-/

[Zansho]

500 bucks, with two lenses? Hmm.

Do you have a preference for Canon, Nikon, or Sony? Might want to even consider some of the Sigma DSLRs, as their Foveon sensors are pretty nice for people/portrait work.

500 bucks would probably get you something like this:

Canon 40D or a 30D I'd personally stay away from a Rebel Series - while they're fine to start out with, the prosumer level bodies are great and the controls are much more intuitive. I used a Rebel once, and I was ready to break out in hives just using the thing. It's too fucking small, the controls are so convoluted that it's hard to get comfortable, and going from a 1D Mark II and Mark III body to a Rebel was like going from a Mercedes CLK to a Kia. It just felt terrible. You can get some nice deals on craigslist if you really look, but I'd take a look at KEH.com or adorama.com for their used/refurbed deals, and see if you can't snag a 30 or 40D for a good price.

Secondly, lenses. I wouldn't even bother with the kit lenses, as they're mostly crap. They're not really good for low light situations, and the IS is basically paying lip service to helping you take pictures. I'd look into a used Tamron 28-75 2.8 - they can be had for around 250-300 used. They're a great walk around lens - and they're very much capable of holding their own with the higher level lenses like the Canon 24-70 2.8. They're not gonna beat them, but they're very very good. The other lens I'd recommend for starters is a Canon 50mm 1.8, and if you want better build quality, get a Canon 50mm 1.4. The 1.8 is decently good, and you can get it for 100 bucks or less. The 1.4 can be had for about 300.

Nikon, well.. I don't really shoot Nikon, as I've been a Canon shooter all my life, but the Nikon D80 has usually been talked about as a starting point, and most can be had for about 300 for the body. Lenses, same recommendation, Tamron 28-75 2.8 to start out with, and Nikon's 50mm 1.8.

[Enedin]

After seeing it for the 50th time, I just have to ask: anyone else keep reading this as "The pornography thread"?

[zoobernut]

I will chime in for Nikon since I am a nikon shooter. In your price range I would look at the new D3100 it is small and convoluted controls like Zansho was talking about with the entry level dslrs but once you learn how to use it, it has a very good metering system, great autofocus, and amazing low light/high iso performance that easily beats all of Nikons older consumer level dslr's in your price range. I personally would not recommend the 28-75mm range for a DX or crop sensor camera as I find it to be not wide enough on the wide end and 75mm is encroaching close to my telephoto lenses on the long end. It makes for an awkward range. I personally would go for the 17-50mm or 17-55mm f2.8 either Tamron or Sigma. Two other cameras to consider in the Nikon lineup are the D5100 which is a little bit outside of your price range but a very good camera and the D90 which you can get a used body for a decent price these days.

Also instead of getting a 50mm which is a somewhat awkward focal length on a crop sensor camera check out the Nikon 35mm F1.8, 35mm field of view on a crop sensor camera is closer to what a 50mm lens field of view would be on a full frame camera or film camera. The Nikon brand 35mm f1.8 is $200 brand new or you can find it for $150 or less used. I have a 50mm lens that I throw on my crop sensor camera sometimes and I often feel like I need to back further up than I want to in order to frame the picture the same that it would be on a film camera. This might not bug you if you don't have any experience with film cameras.

The other thing I will say about lenses is that if you do happen to get the 17-50mm f2.8 you might not even need a prime lens in that range and it might be advantageous for you to get a telephoto zoom lens like the 55-300mm AF-S Nikon or something like that. That would give you versatility and cover the focal lengths all the way from wide to telephoto. (This advice is more based on your experience level and advice that I have given to friends in similar situations that made them happy.)

The MOST important thing is for you to play with the camera hold it in your hands all the different cameras and all the different brands are essentially the same in their ability to take pictures, where you really see the difference is in the comfort and ergonomics of the camera and in that area everyone is completely unique and different. Each person has their preferences and you want to find a camera that you are comfortable holding and using. Believe me anyone who says X brand is better than Y brand is just blowing smoke up your you know what in order to push a sale.

[Zansho]

In all honesty, 10 MP is plenty for just about anyone. Don't get too caught up in the MP hype. I have and still use a 1D Mark IIN, which is 8.2MP. It's still trucking along, and puts out a lot of my work that I have on my site. My other two cameras are a 7D and a 5D mark II, but the one I reach for the most is my 1D Mark IIN, believe it or not.

On a crop body, sure, I can see 28-75 being somewhat awkward, but for portraits, you want a bit more of a longer focal length. If you shoot someone at the extreme wide angle, you're going to risk distorting them a bit, and it will most likely result in their body parts looking slightly elongated than normal. In other words, they're gonna look fat.

The reason why I recommended the 50mm 1.8 is simply due to price. 100 bucks for a pretty decent prime lens is hard to beat. 35mm would be more logical, of course, but Canon doesn't really make an affordable 35mm (300 plus for the 35mm 2.0), and the Sigma offering is around 400 bucks used. Meh. For someone starting out, 50mm 1.8 at under 100 is ridiculously good value.

For what it's worth, on my 7D I do have a 17-55 2.8 IS in EF-S mount - and the 2-3 stop of IS really does help. Tamron is coming out with a new 24-70 2.8 soon with IS, and I'm probably going to ditch this lens for that one.

[zoobernut]

Oh yeah totally Zansho the MP thing is way overhyped and you really don't need more MP until you KNOW you need them (which in most cases means you are printing posters or doing macro/wild life photography and cropping way down)

As for my lens recommendation I totally agree anything wider than 35mm on a crop sensor camera for people photos is really awkward if you are up close. I tend to stick right between 35mm and 55mm for general people photography but I switch to my 50mm f1.4 or my 105mm F2.8 macro for real portrait work. I just find for a beginning photographer it is much easier to just get the 17-55mm f2.8 and leave that lens on your camera almost full time as it will be good for landscape, architecture, general photographs, and people at the long end. It just simplifies things for someone starting out. The 35mm AF-S f1.8 Nikon is only about $50 more than their 50mm lens and I feel like it works much better on a crop sensor.

(This is speaking purely of Nikon lenses and pricing, I don't think Canon has an affordable 35mm prime).

My D7000 basically has either the 17-55mm or the 105 macro on it and that is it for me most of the time.

[Zansho]

My current lens line up right now for my work is this:

Canon 85mm 1.8
Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II
Tamron 70-200 2.8 (backup, but never used it.. >.>)
Canon 24-70 2.8
Canon 17-55 2.8 IS
Canon 50mm 1.4
Canon 17-40 F4

I'm probably going to end up selling the Tamron and the 17-40, and buy the new Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, and maybe Sigma's 35mm. Not quite sure yet.
Edit: Might also sell my 7D with grip, along with the 17-55 2.8, and grab a 1Ds Mark II Full frame body in its place, and mate that with the new Tamron. We'll see!

That pretty much covers me in terms of whatever I do, except for extreme sports. For that, I'll rent the serious stuff, like the 400mm 2.8.

[zoobernut]

If I was shooting full frame I would absolutely recommend 24-70mm f2.8 over the 17-55mm f2.8 (the 17-55 isn't a full frame lens to begin with but even if it was...).

[zoobernut]

Just wanted to give everyone a heads up Adobe Lightroom 3 is on sale in Amazons gold box deal of the day today. It is $89.99 probably due to the upcoming release of Lightroom 4. But if you buy lr3 at $90 and pay $100 to upgrade it to lr4 that is still cheaper than the $300 brand new price tag that lr4 will probably cost. I think I am going to pick it up today since I don't have it yet.

[miokomioko]

Bridge or bust!

[zoobernut]

Adobe bridge doesn't allow you to edit the photos though... as far as I saw when using it. Maybe it does have a raw editor but Lightroom is bridge plus editing.

[zoobernut]

Hmm one of my facebook acquaintances just got into an argument with me because he said his iphone took better pictures than his Canon 40D and I disagreed. He then tried to tell me he knew more about the iphone camera and DSLR's than me because he helps develop photo apps for the iphone (he works for apple).

Oh well I guess he will be wasting a lot of money replacing his canon 40D with something really expensive in his quest for a camera "better" than his iphone.

[Doombear]

Man, a few very talented photographer friends of mine haven't done shit outside of Instagram in months. Instagram is the death. I am quite happy I have an Android phone so I am not even tempted =P

[zoobernut]

I agree with you. I really don't like this new trend instagram has created. Taking a snapshot with your camera phone and then running a couple prefab filters on the photo so you can post it to facebook doesn't make you an amazing photographer. Don't get me wrong I have seen some really good instagram photos but the arrogance of most of the people posting instagram photos is really annoying.

The friend trying to tell me that his iphone takes better photos than his canon 40d is addicted to instagram.

[zoobernut]

http://www.memecreator.com/static/im...emes/22562.jpg

Made this for that facebook retard who got all butthurt when I told him that the canon 40d is a better camera than his iphone and suggested the reason why he thought his iphone took better pictures is because he doesn't know how to use the canon 40d.

[miokomioko]

The iPhone 4S really is the best point and shoot camera for people who don't know what the fuck they are doing.