Joe --- Each person has their own style of PP & what "they" like to see in an image. For example, I like images that are high-contrast with slight saturation that make the colours "pop." [ I also like sharp images ]
I took one of your photos & did some quick 5 minute work on them just so you can get an idea. But remember, every person can take this image and alter it a million different ways to suit their "taste." I did 2 different versions.
Original:
PP:
A second PP:
Things I did: Played with colour balance, levels, vibrance / saturation, brightness / contrast, & curves. [ oh, I also added a 1px border LOL ]
Most of these settings can be found under image ---> adjustments [ at the top menu when you finish installing photoshop ] ~
Thanx for the tips Osy - I never thought about using Amazon like that. Good call!
I have the 50mm f/1.8, I love it - and I plan to get the 50mm f/1.4 too. I learned a lot from my 50mm.
My thought was I could get the 35mm f/1.4 and the 85mm for about the same price as getting the 24-70 & 70-200 lenses... would give me less flexibility but a better quality (and better low-light experience).
----
Joe - those look great! It is fun to transition to a SLR, you will see how you improve over time. The forum was a big help for me, and Nico has been a big help in just the short time this thread has been alive... hopefully we can get Brandon, Rui, and Dave to chime in a bit too, they are all experienced camera guys.
Hello Joe,
The purpose of this forum is that in stead of 500 pics you only need 5 or so to get a nice photo. The purpose is also to make you understand the situation quickly and get the best setting for that situation to loose less pictures from perfect moments. One more, many cameras try to think for you, which is okay for those who want okay photo's but don't want to get the max out of their camera.
A photo is always without value if there is camera shake (with exception of moving subjects). So the easiest way to avoid that in automatic setting is to raise the ISO-setting. The higher the number, the more light sensitive the camera becomes. However, this has a price: the noise levels will go up in a linear line. So, the best images are made with the lowest ISO setting, mostly at 100 (if enough light is available). In the film periods there was such a thing as a Fuji Velvia, ISO 50 that made fantastic images, but with the right camera only. If you didn't have the best optics you would never get the best out of the film. The resolving power was the limit, that's the amount of lines per mm the lens could produce. The same happens today where camera producers try to motivate you buying their newest toys with more megapixels then last year. However, with most compact camera's the resolution of the chip is already far higher than the optics they use. All you do is make the camera slower and fill up the chip faster. The same happens with many of the low cost DSLR's. Canon and Nikon offer camera kits, where they put like a 500D (with relative high resolution) in a box together with a cheap zoom lens which cannot even handle halve of the pixels. So don't waist money on them. Just don't buy them, they are good for nothing.
Brad: A lens should last for many years. That's why the Amazon trick Osy talked about it a good idea. The 35mm F1.4L is a good lens. If you plan on a 7D you have more pixels per square mm than the 5Dmk2. So only the best optics are good enough. The 50mm F1.4 is a bargain for the money. At full opening the way more expensive 50mm F1.2L is better, but from 2.8 and higher it's the other way around. You mentioned the 85mm. Same story here, the F 1.8 an excellent lens between 2.8 and lets say 8. The minimum you need for a dog is 4 or higher (to have enough dept in field), so why bather for the very expensive 1.2L? It isn't even better, with exception of 1.2-2.0 settings. Unique for indoor sports photograpy, not very useful for outdoor stuff. So your idea to have some prime lenses is very good in my opinion. Understand that due to the smaller chip a 50mm will act like a 80mm lens. So if you want a really, really good 35mm lens (which acts like a 56mm), you may also consider the newest 35mm F2.0 from Zeiss. It is manual focus, quality wise one of the best 35mm ever made (with exception of Leica's Summilux). Much more expensive than the 50mm 1.4 from Canon is the 50mm F2.0 Macro from Zeiss. Again manual focus but one of the best you can get (however at least 3x the price of the Canon). So first decide which body you want, than find the matching lenses.
Photoshop: great program, a must have for Pro's. But only try step by step, otherwise you find more ways to ruin your picture than to improve it. Osy, is it an idea you give some very basis tips how to start without getting lost in the program? Maybe it is worth a separate lead, since it is a job on its own. Remember all: a bad photo is hard to improve by post processing. A good photo can be made better or worse, depending on the skills of the operator. No digital camera makes finished photo's, all of them need work, at least some careful sharpening done in the final size.
Leonberger: is the first Kuma photo done with flash or from a tripod? (I don't see flash reflections in his eyes so I guess tripod, otherwise you have a very steady hand. 1/15 sec with 105 mm is not recommended unless you have a great image stabilizer. There is still pretty much dept in field, you could have gone to F4.0 and 1/30 sec to avoid camera shake and less dept in field to more isolate Kuma (but I don't see it …) However most people could not do this. Which camera/lenses do you use?
It's hand-held. I'd say I can get about 60% sharp shots at that speed, hand-held. Apparently, I have pretty steady hands. Although the lens helps, it's Nikon's 18-105VR, the one that comes in the D90 original kit. It's pretty sharp stopped down the 5.6 or 8. That's why that photo (and a large percentage of my photos) is shot at 5.6.
Okay, so the Vibration Reduction works well. If you know what F-stop results in the best images, than that helps a lot. On the longer focal length, maybe F8 could be the better option to not shoot wide open. But now I understand you didn't use F4.0 since on the 105mm the camera has a 5.6 minimum. With the last photo it shows its center quality, but the bokeh is not so very nice (in my opinion). You might be able to improve this with photoshop, however lots of work. The lens does seems to have a very high price-quality ration. Adding a 50mm F1.4 Nikkor might bring some very nice shots out of the D90. I would love to experience with the live view, since I also use manual focus lenses. Maybe with my next Canon 5D MK2 (or if I can resist to wait the 3D or 5D MK3).
Here are two extreme images: the first one taken in Milan, in the background the big Cathedral. As you may see, Reno's rear right leg is completely out of proportion, way to big. Even his back is too long. The shot is taken at 100 ISO (plenty of light) with the 5D + 16-35mm F2.8L, @ 16mm, F8 and 1/250 sec. A 14 mm lens would do even worse. But the dept in field is very high, from front to the Duomo. But Reno is kind of remodeled :-) The next one is Rico, taken with a 80-200 F2.8L @ 200mm, F2.8 and 1/160 sec. Due to the long focal length and F2.8 there is hardly any depth in field. This type of lenses do very well, even full open. What I like about it is the concentration on the head, hardly any background detail. The out-of-focus area doesn't hurt the eyes, is very nice and smooth. The 200 mm lens allows to stay far away from the subject. But it also compresses the subject a little bit. The only focal length what doesn't is a 50mm lens. Portrets are normally taken between 85 and 135 mm, F2.8 - F4.0. I personally love the even longer lenses.
Hello Brad, each photo is processed, but normally the exposure should be okay, like in the middle. This however could mean part of the image to be blown out. You have dogs that are very dark. So they may appear a bit grey in the image, since the light meter doesn't expect very dark objects. For him, all needs to be "grey". So snow will be to dark, black dogs will be to light. Now, if you take your pics in RAW mode, you can alter the exposure to make the dog black again. Sometimes, like the one from Rico up here, you may see some detail missing on his noose. If I still had the original RAW I could make and HDR-image out of it. Use the darkest and the lightest parts and combine. There are some tricks to do it, but also some good programs. RAW should allow you to alter like 2 full stops of exposure during processing. Enhancing the curves or the contrast can also do part of it. I personally love to work in LAB-colors, since it gives me more workspace and options. But you do need to understand how they work otherwise it becomes complicated. Brad, if you are keen on wide-angle photography, Nikon has one absolute great lens, their 14-24mm is among the best in the world. Obviously you will need a Nikon Body. If you are more in telephotography, I would suggest sticking with the Canon idea. The 7D is great, but also a 5D will do well and might be very affordable right now, since it is no longer produced. I use that one all the time; just miss the live view (5D mk2) for manual focus lenses.
I've used the Live View to focus manually, both on Nikon and Canon, and I honestly don't think it is a very good option. With the size of the viewfinder on the 5D, you should have a pretty easy time focusing manually, since it's pretty much the same size of a film camera viewfinder.
About the 50mm, it's on my list, but the 1.8 one. I don't think it really pays off to have the 1.4, for the price difference, and since I don't do any professional photography. I'm always looking for the best bang out of my buck (or euro, in this case).
Obviously you have to use a tripod if you want to benefit form live view. And use the zoom-in function of the screen so you can really see details. If not than it is better to stick with auto-focus. But I have the zoomlenses to cover the areas for convenience, if I want the best quality I prefer the primes. But I used to be a Pro-photographer, so in my case it is a different situation. I never had to many primes in the 35mm cameras, since I used mostly medium format or even large format up to 5x7" slides. Those are a bit out of the picture now, so I prefer to update my 35mm set. Maybe one day I might consider a digital back for my Contax 645.
Brad, check out the picture higher of Reno shaking of water, with Rico in the background. The second image is processed in LAB-colors, and made more bright and added some sharpness.
Yeah EXIF is the data that shows up, when posting a photo. Going back a few post the nikkor 18-105VR is not a very sharp lens. However with the D90 the old 85mm 1.8 AF comes up as a great prime lens. You should be able to get it for a very cheap price.
I downloaded an EXIF extension for Firefox, now I just click on the image and see the data, if available. I have no experience with the 18-105 nikkor, work with canon. Leonberger seems to shoot nice stuff with it, but I cannot see corner sharpness. Bokeh is kind of painful for the eyes. The 85 could be a good choise, I love that focal length (but use it on full size chip). I used to have an 85mm F1.8 from Pentax, it was like over 30 years old. Sold it for €450, that's more than I spent on it :-) in the seventies. But it was really good. Just bought the brand new Canon 85mm F1.8 for € 350,00 absolutely worth it, extremely good. Will try to take some new pics with it to show, but the weather is kind of lousy. Here's one from a few weeks ago in the snow. (400 ISO, F 4.0 / 1/320 sec, 85mm F1.8 USM.)
Sean, according to my experience, and to the lab tests at photozone.de, the 18-105VR is a sharp lens. Here are the MTF figures for it, at 50mm extension, as well as for the 50mm 1.4, both at f8
18-105mm - 2109 in the center, 1991 in the border 50mm - 2078 in the center, 2069 in the border
As you can see, it can be sharper than a prime lens, a professional prime lens at that, for the same settings. Of course it has loads of weaknesses, and it can't compete with the prime in terms of consistency (just notice that the sharpness of the 50mm is pretty much the same through out the frame), or does it open so much to help in low light, but for the price tag I consider it to be one of the best all-rounders out there.
Correction - I was thinking about the 24-120 VR nikkor. Does the lens have any issues with softness at 18mm? Currently I am using my 18-55mm kit lens and a 70-300vr nikkor. So I am in the market for a new lens. Thinking I might look into a 18-200 or go the prime route and track down the one of the AFS primes. Not sure yet.
F6.3, 1-15th, iso 360, 55mm, aperture priority.
1-400th, F5.6, iso 280, 280mm, shutter priority.
F4.5 1-500th, 70mm, shutter priority, and iso 1600.
Brad, part of the post processing could also be cropping. Cut away useless and distracting information to get more attention for the main subject. The 2:3 format is okay but square can be nice too. Look at some of the options I did with some of your pics.
With the first, the fence is disturbing, just cut it away. The 3 others look even nicer in square, in my opinion.
Jack, the same a bit… my humble advise, use the cutting tool for nicer formats… What about the contrast, the original appears a bit to soft. This image is a bit grainy, I wouldn't mind getting the original to see what can be done.
but all of those images had been cropped already - especially the one with JJ and Mochi - that image had a LOT of the fence in it (note it was taken at 300mm).
Brad, that image of JJ and Mochi, I really like it this way. It's like they are set and posing for this image. Their eyes are fantastic, they have a far look, but still look into the image. A bit more space on their right side could have been a bit better, or is there more fence? So you need a longer telephoto lens and/or a higher resolution camera. Now I understand your whish list for the 100-400 mm lens. Your property is a bit oversized for regular photographers :-) Maybe you can look for a used 400mm F5.6. It is really good and not to expensive.
Jack, well, I guess the idea is clear, lots can be done this way after the photo has been made. Try this shot again but without the leash. The harnas is fine! If you would use a fill in flash light, you would see small lights in the eyes, very nice. But set the flash like 1 or 2 stops below, so it's only a fill-in flash, not overtaking the ambient light.
Do any of you guys use a tablet for photo editing?
I've been using tablets [ Wacom, not the screen type ] Since I was 14. Started with a tiny 3x4 Graphire I got for a $100, that served me well for 4 years, then I invested in an 11x6.5" Intuos, that cost around $450.
But, I can think of very, very few times I've acctually used the tablet for photo-editing / post processing. Really, the only thing you can do with a Tablet you can't do easily with a mouse is "cutting out" a subject. [ for example, if you wanted to remove the background from a dog ] Even then that can be done with photoshop & the pen tool w/ a mouse, it just takes a bit longer & some extra practice
Reality is, pen tablets are usually for Web Design / Graphic Work, &/or digital art / drawings / paintings. I don't think I know any photographers who use tablets to do post-processing [ unless, like I said, they regularly clip their subjects ]
Do any of you guys use a tablet for photo editing?
I have a Wacom tablet too but now only rarely use it for photo editing and post-processing. I agree with Osy, it's not much better than a mouse for most things and quite a bit more expensive. It is good for cutting out or doing layer masks to do selective coloring, etc. Here's one example, unfortunately I don't have any with dogs, but you get the idea - Taken in B&W (with film), scanned, all color added in photoshop...
cool. thanks guys. I've kind of taken up drawing again and I've been toying with the idea of getting a tablet, plus I was thinking about them when I was playing in photoshop. It does seem like it'd be easier to outline things with a pen and tablet. I'll see, maybe when I get some more money to waste on useless technology.
Do any of you guys use a tablet for photo editing?
Wacom tablets (or other brands) offer the benefit of working pressure sensitive. So if you want retouch an image, the mouse is with a fixed "gain". It's either 100% or any other pre-setting. The tablet allows you to do this ongoing by just adding more or less pressure on the pen, like you would do naturally with a pencil. Any A5 or A4 size will do, rarely does a bigger one help you. If you really want to use this well, make sure you have one with a higher resolution to work very accurately. Adjustments like on a skin or glossy surface can be done very nicely. It takes some time to get used to it, after you will never use the mouse again. Making a path, in my opinion, always works better with a mouse (at least for me).
This photo is taken with a 200mm F2.8 at full opening. The small christmas lights in the back appear very nice circulair, because the lens has many diafragm blades, like nine. The focus was done on the hairs on the right side of his head, better would have been on his left eye, since dept-in-field is extremely shallow.
Today I tried the new 200mm F2.8L outside to see what it could do. It's really nice, however also very difficult to focus manually. Its dept-in-field is very shallow, but with 4.5 it was kind of okay to get the head in focus. The background blur seems very nice to me. The photo is taken with the late afternoon light. 1/125 sec/F4.5, ISO 100. Shousei is 4.5 months here.
Comments
I took one of your photos & did some quick 5 minute work on them just so you can get an idea. But remember, every person can take this image and alter it a million different ways to suit their "taste." I did 2 different versions.
Original:
PP:
A second PP:
Things I did: Played with colour balance, levels, vibrance / saturation, brightness / contrast, & curves. [ oh, I also added a 1px border LOL ]
Most of these settings can be found under image ---> adjustments [ at the top menu when you finish installing photoshop ] ~
Do any of you guys use a tablet for photo editing?
I have the 50mm f/1.8, I love it - and I plan to get the 50mm f/1.4 too. I learned a lot from my 50mm.
My thought was I could get the 35mm f/1.4 and the 85mm for about the same price as getting the 24-70 & 70-200 lenses... would give me less flexibility but a better quality (and better low-light experience).
----
Joe - those look great! It is fun to transition to a SLR, you will see how you improve over time. The forum was a big help for me, and Nico has been a big help in just the short time this thread has been alive... hopefully we can get Brandon, Rui, and Dave to chime in a bit too, they are all experienced camera guys.
----
Here are a couple of photos of Kuma that I like.
ISO 200; f5.6; 1/15s; 105mm
ISO 125; f5.6; 1/250s; 21mm
ISO 200; f5.6; 1/1250s; 70mm
The purpose of this forum is that in stead of 500 pics you only need 5 or so to get a nice photo. The purpose is also to make you understand the situation quickly and get the best setting for that situation to loose less pictures from perfect moments. One more, many cameras try to think for you, which is okay for those who want okay photo's but don't want to get the max out of their camera.
A photo is always without value if there is camera shake (with exception of moving subjects). So the easiest way to avoid that in automatic setting is to raise the ISO-setting. The higher the number, the more light sensitive the camera becomes. However, this has a price: the noise levels will go up in a linear line. So, the best images are made with the lowest ISO setting, mostly at 100 (if enough light is available). In the film periods there was such a thing as a Fuji Velvia, ISO 50 that made fantastic images, but with the right camera only. If you didn't have the best optics you would never get the best out of the film. The resolving power was the limit, that's the amount of lines per mm the lens could produce. The same happens today where camera producers try to motivate you buying their newest toys with more megapixels then last year. However, with most compact camera's the resolution of the chip is already far higher than the optics they use. All you do is make the camera slower and fill up the chip faster. The same happens with many of the low cost DSLR's. Canon and Nikon offer camera kits, where they put like a 500D (with relative high resolution) in a box together with a cheap zoom lens which cannot even handle halve of the pixels. So don't waist money on them. Just don't buy them, they are good for nothing.
Brad: A lens should last for many years. That's why the Amazon trick Osy talked about it a good idea. The 35mm F1.4L is a good lens. If you plan on a 7D you have more pixels per square mm than the 5Dmk2. So only the best optics are good enough. The 50mm F1.4 is a bargain for the money. At full opening the way more expensive 50mm F1.2L is better, but from 2.8 and higher it's the other way around. You mentioned the 85mm. Same story here, the F 1.8 an excellent lens between 2.8 and lets say 8. The minimum you need for a dog is 4 or higher (to have enough dept in field), so why bather for the very expensive 1.2L? It isn't even better, with exception of 1.2-2.0 settings. Unique for indoor sports photograpy, not very useful for outdoor stuff. So your idea to have some prime lenses is very good in my opinion. Understand that due to the smaller chip a 50mm will act like a 80mm lens. So if you want a really, really good 35mm lens (which acts like a 56mm), you may also consider the newest 35mm F2.0 from Zeiss. It is manual focus, quality wise one of the best 35mm ever made (with exception of Leica's Summilux). Much more expensive than the 50mm 1.4 from Canon is the 50mm F2.0 Macro from Zeiss. Again manual focus but one of the best you can get (however at least 3x the price of the Canon). So first decide which body you want, than find the matching lenses.
Photoshop: great program, a must have for Pro's. But only try step by step, otherwise you find more ways to ruin your picture than to improve it. Osy, is it an idea you give some very basis tips how to start without getting lost in the program? Maybe it is worth a separate lead, since it is a job on its own. Remember all: a bad photo is hard to improve by post processing. A good photo can be made better or worse, depending on the skills of the operator. No digital camera makes finished photo's, all of them need work, at least some careful sharpening done in the final size.
Leonberger: is the first Kuma photo done with flash or from a tripod? (I don't see flash reflections in his eyes so I guess tripod, otherwise you have a very steady hand. 1/15 sec with 105 mm is not recommended unless you have a great image stabilizer. There is still pretty much dept in field, you could have gone to F4.0 and 1/30 sec to avoid camera shake and less dept in field to more isolate Kuma (but I don't see it …) However most people could not do this. Which camera/lenses do you use?
----
Post Processing...
How often do you guys alter the exposure of you images in Post Processing?
----
The next one is Rico, taken with a 80-200 F2.8L @ 200mm, F2.8 and 1/160 sec. Due to the long focal length and F2.8 there is hardly any depth in field. This type of lenses do very well, even full open. What I like about it is the concentration on the head, hardly any background detail. The out-of-focus area doesn't hurt the eyes, is very nice and smooth. The 200 mm lens allows to stay far away from the subject. But it also compresses the subject a little bit. The only focal length what doesn't is a 50mm lens. Portrets are normally taken between 85 and 135 mm, F2.8 - F4.0. I personally love the even longer lenses.
Brad, if you are keen on wide-angle photography, Nikon has one absolute great lens, their 14-24mm is among the best in the world. Obviously you will need a Nikon Body. If you are more in telephotography, I would suggest sticking with the Canon idea. The 7D is great, but also a 5D will do well and might be very affordable right now, since it is no longer produced. I use that one all the time; just miss the live view (5D mk2) for manual focus lenses.
With the size of the viewfinder on the 5D, you should have a pretty easy time focusing manually, since it's pretty much the same size of a film camera viewfinder.
About the 50mm, it's on my list, but the 1.8 one. I don't think it really pays off to have the 1.4, for the price difference, and since I don't do any professional photography. I'm always looking for the best bang out of my buck (or euro, in this case).
Here are the MTF figures for it, at 50mm extension, as well as for the 50mm 1.4, both at f8
18-105mm - 2109 in the center, 1991 in the border
50mm - 2078 in the center, 2069 in the border
As you can see, it can be sharper than a prime lens, a professional prime lens at that, for the same settings. Of course it has loads of weaknesses, and it can't compete with the prime in terms of consistency (just notice that the sharpness of the 50mm is pretty much the same through out the frame), or does it open so much to help in low light, but for the price tag I consider it to be one of the best all-rounders out there.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4009/4223465074_2778beddc6.jpg
1/160, f/5.6, 300mm, ISO 200
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4040/4222703881_2246f58d1e.jpg
1/200, f/5.6, 135mm, ISO 200
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2499/4222653357_16a933d7ca.jpg
1/320, f/6.3, 300mm, ISO 100
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2644/4222702595_c0c4795e5c.jpg
1/250, f/5.6, 300mm, ISO 200
All shot in RAW.
----
F6.3, 1-15th, iso 360, 55mm, aperture priority.
1-400th, F5.6, iso 280, 280mm, shutter priority.
F4.5 1-500th, 70mm, shutter priority, and iso 1600.
With the first, the fence is disturbing, just cut it away. The 3 others look even nicer in square, in my opinion.
but all of those images had been cropped already - especially the one with JJ and Mochi - that image had a LOT of the fence in it (note it was taken at 300mm).
Jack, well, I guess the idea is clear, lots can be done this way after the photo has been made. Try this shot again but without the leash. The harnas is fine! If you would use a fill in flash light, you would see small lights in the eyes, very nice. But set the flash like 1 or 2 stops below, so it's only a fill-in flash, not overtaking the ambient light.
I've been using tablets [ Wacom, not the screen type ] Since I was 14. Started with a tiny 3x4 Graphire I got for a $100, that served me well for 4 years, then I invested in an 11x6.5" Intuos, that cost around $450.
But, I can think of very, very few times I've acctually used the tablet for photo-editing / post processing. Really, the only thing you can do with a Tablet you can't do easily with a mouse is "cutting out" a subject. [ for example, if you wanted to remove the background from a dog ] Even then that can be done with photoshop & the pen tool w/ a mouse, it just takes a bit longer & some extra practice
Reality is, pen tablets are usually for Web Design / Graphic Work, &/or digital art / drawings / paintings. I don't think I know any photographers who use tablets to do post-processing [ unless, like I said, they regularly clip their subjects ]
Hope that helped
I have a Wacom tablet too but now only rarely use it for photo editing and post-processing. I agree with Osy, it's not much better than a mouse for most things and quite a bit more expensive. It is good for cutting out or doing layer masks to do selective coloring, etc. Here's one example, unfortunately I don't have any with dogs, but you get the idea - Taken in B&W (with film), scanned, all color added in photoshop...
Wacom tablets (or other brands) offer the benefit of working pressure sensitive. So if you want retouch an image, the mouse is with a fixed "gain". It's either 100% or any other pre-setting. The tablet allows you to do this ongoing by just adding more or less pressure on the pen, like you would do naturally with a pencil. Any A5 or A4 size will do, rarely does a bigger one help you. If you really want to use this well, make sure you have one with a higher resolution to work very accurately. Adjustments like on a skin or glossy surface can be done very nicely. It takes some time to get used to it, after you will never use the mouse again. Making a path, in my opinion, always works better with a mouse (at least for me).