Thanks, guys. Unfortunately, I don't have the money to do much of anything. Even to get just a few prints made. The local art scene (Charlotte) is so fucking pretentious (from what I've seen) and I don't think animal prints would do well. I guess I'll never know.

My setup is cheap. Canon T2i with 50mm f/2.8, almost always with a 430ex II on a cord, shot through one of my two cheap, homemade diffusers. Both are made from 12" dome lights, one which works just like any softbox, the other mimics the effect of a macro twin-lite, but absorbs so much of the flash power that you can only really light small subjects.

As for stock photography, I got a Getty invite a while back. They chose 5 shots, all of which blew my mind because they're really not shots that I feel are particularly great. Is Getty shit and overly-restrictive because their curators are looking for something else? Seems like they want stuff that's pretty much vanilla, run-of-the-mill stock photography.

[Edited on October 3, 2013 at 9:44 AM. Reason : .]

10/3/2013 9:40:27 AM

Submit one to the link I posted above. Or 5. They take digital submissions, so you don't have to worry about costing you anything to get started.

http://ourstate.upickem.net/engine/Welcome.aspx?contestid=106317

Also, I know we have talked about doing photo group at times. I would love to do a evening/weekend macro meeting thing with you at a park or something. And if anybody ever wanted to do an airshow photo meetup, I would love to do that. I am no expert, but I can get some pretty decent stuff with my relatively cheap setup.

10/3/2013 10:03:50 AM

umop, if anything, I would highly recommend you submit those lizards photos for competitions. They are that good. Seriously, submit it for the National Geographic Photo Contest.

Forget about Getty, you have to be an actual Getty shooter to get anywhere with them. It's not a friendly community either.

10/3/2013 11:11:35 AM

^I agree. Get your feet wet with this contest. Here, I have sorted the Animals photo submissions that have been received so far. Most of them are shit, but especially compared to yours.

http://ourstate.upickem.net/engine/ApprovedSubmissions.aspx?PageType=APPROVED&ContestID=106317#SubmissionDisplay

10/3/2013 11:32:06 AM

I'm really not a fan of entering contests where I can see the competition ahead of time. I think that's actually kinda lame. But I guess it's not as bad as the contests that judge by voting, allow voting on images to begin as soon as they are submitted, and allow people to vote daily. But I get it, some statewide exposure.

Obviously, I'm a bit picky. I think submitting either of the lizard photos is a complete cop-out, since they're pets. I realize the category isn't labeled "wildlife", but if the magazine is trying to showcase something about North Carolina, a picture of a fucking pet is a cop-out.

I'll look through my photos, determine which of those from NC is worth submitting. But I always wait to submit til the last minute, since I think the impact an image has on a judge can weaken the longer it sits in his/her mind. The only shot I actually see in the animal category that I remotely like is the one where the person is feeding the geese, but if I see that as the only competition leading up to the final days for submission and it's the only true competitor, I might consider the chameleon photos.

Nighthawk, I'm in the Charlotte area and I can't travel to Raleigh (blame the museum for hiring some fresh-out-of-school guy over me with 8 years of experience now). And my photography techniques are really not advanced. The vast majority of the shots are the same equipment, same settings, minor differences in post-processing. Canon T2i, 50mm f/2.8, 430ex II, off-shoe cord, homemade flash diffuser, almost always set to f/16 (occasionally shooting smaller aperture), 1/200 sec, ISO 100 or 200. The only thing is my personal touch...usually trying to find a hint of the animal's habitat to fill out the composition and give it a little bit of an in situ feel. But if you're around here, feel free to get in touch.

10/3/2013 7:00:14 PM

Don't sell yourself short. Its a great shot. You should plaster that everywhere you can. I would look at submitting it to nature and photography magazines, get some exposure. You may think that you've not been advancing, but honestly, there's very little room to advance since you got the technique and lighting down very good. Your shots have always been refreshing to see and something I'd expect to be printed in book or an encyclopedia somewhere.

So what if you are using cheap equipment and crappy DIY gear, whatever it takes to get the shot. I can't tell you how many times I've put my camera or myself in harms way for a photo or jerryrigged DIY stuff that shouldn't have been rigged in the first place. That's the fun part of the production side of photography. It's the little things that make you laugh and say "wow... that fucking worked?"

10/3/2013 8:12:08 PM

Well, it's more of the fact that I don't really look forward to go out and bump elbows with people that are shooting with equipment where any one piece costs more than my whole setup. If I could afford more, it would open up the possibilities. But running around with some beat-up, duct-taped diffuser is something I think would just generate some laughs from people. I just like the fact that I can combine hobbies (wildlife viewing and photography) to produce something. But the big reptile/amphibian-oriented photo contests always have people with jacked up, expensive gear that I can't dream of getting at this point. Overall, I don't really know of many photo contests worth entering (e.g., the prizes aren't just a half-off your next purchase coupon or some bullshit like that). The Our State one looks good though. As I mentioned, I'm gonna hold off til the deadline is much closer. $250 is something I can't pass up right now.

[Edited on October 3, 2013 at 8:24 PM. Reason : .]

10/3/2013 8:23:01 PM

Quote :

" I don't really look forward to go out and bump elbows with people that are shooting with equipment where any one piece costs more than my whole setup. If I could afford more, it would open up the possibilities. But running around with some beat-up, duct-taped diffuser is something I think would just generate some laughs from people"

More often than not, those people with expensive gear were in the exact same position as you were years prior. Most of the time, they'll laugh, but laugh with you in the fact that they probably did the same duct-taped diffuser setup. Shit, they'd probably show up with expensive body and lens with a similar duct-taped diffuser.

Remember, photographers are tinkers and curious. If you have great shots, they want to know how exactly you did it. You level of respect goes up way higher if you can do more with less and produce professional image quality. And I can say without a doubt after looking at your work over the years, you IQ is professional.

10/3/2013 8:31:36 PM

And lets not forget the guys who have more money than sense. Those people who come in toting a $3k body and $10k lenses and can't get a decent shot to save their life. Or worse, don't know how to use their gear. I can't tell you how many times I've been at airshows, surrounded by guys with full-frame cameras and super-telephoto lenses getting 50 shots every time a plane makes a pass, but their photos are shit. Guy at an airshow two years ago was shooting in portrait mode and didn't know that the camera could be fired by the grip shutter button! He was reaching across to shoot from the standard button and I was like "Hey you know its a lot easier if you do it like this". His response was "Oh, I didn't know what that button was for. I just got it for the extra battery. That feels weird shooting like this." WTF? Hell even two weekends ago at the Winston-Salem Airshow, some guy got in our area rocking several nice 2.8 lenses and a D3 body. He goes to shooting away and is getting WAY more shots than we do per pass. I talked to him a bit between acts and he gives me his card and tells me to subscribe to his newsletter for some tips and pointers. I checked it out later. He had some pretty good landscape stuff, but his aerials photos were shit. Bad color, stopped props, overexposed, not close in at all, etc. I love the people that drop $texas on gear and don't know shit about using it, but think because they dropped big money, they will immediately shoot like pros. It doesn't work that way.

[Edited on October 3, 2013 at 10:08 PM. Reason : ]

10/3/2013 10:06:26 PM

Some work I finally got around to edit.

10/7/2013 2:17:51 AM

What wireless triggers are you using Jeff? I am putting them on the Christmas list. I have 4 speedlights and 3 studio strobes, so I am thinking about mixing it up and trying to get this:

1 MiniTT1-Nikon (for on camera use)
2 FlexTT5-Nikon (for speedlights with TTL capability, 2 have & 2 don't)
3 PlusX (To get started and then to use with my studio strobes, as they are older White Lightnings)

Does that sound about right? I think I may get the PlusX's first just to start off with, and then add on the MiniTT1 and Flex units later.

10/7/2013 8:15:29 AM

I'm currently using Paul C Buff CyberSync's and I can say without a doubt, best value wireless triggers EVER. I've had mine since they first came out years ago and they are still rock solid, work in 99% of my situations and have an incredible range. The 350' range of their transmitters is very under rated.

I've used them to remotely trigger a 2nd camera camera in the rafters of the RBC center during NHL where normal Pocketwizards failed or couldn't get a signal (reason why I had PW Multimax's back then). Just last month, I used CyberSync's to trigger my strobes about 1/3 a mile away, line of site shooting across a mesa/valley in the middle of the desert. I was just impressed that it could still get a signal even though its rate of success was 1 in 4 pops.

I actually had Multimax's before CyberSync's and those were awesome but they are so expensive; those are the ONLY pocket-wizards I will ever buy again. All of the other PW's suck and if you are going to spend to get the best, you'd get Multimax's.

I tried out the the PW TTL wireless triggers when they first came out a few years ago for Canon systems and they were terrible; Nikon versions were much much better from what I heard, but even then, they couldn't put up a candle stick to other TTL wireless systems on the market at the time. Their range were bad; like 20-40' bad for Canon. Nikon one's were triple that, but even then, it's range seemed so limited compared to other triggers with TTL capabilities. I'm sure they've fixed those kinks now, but honestly, TTL is such a crap shoot that I'd rather have normal triggers and manual flash controls.

TTL metering always gets confused and you will fight it way more to get the lighting just the way you want it. Not only that, but if you wanted to reproduce a lighting scenario consistently, TTL is just terrible. Put flash heads where you want it, set power, and trigger them... I mean once you start shooting in the field a lot and get intimate with your speedlights and know what you can and can't get; you'll be out there too thinking "I need this speedlight here at 1/64 while this one be 1/2 set for exposure 400 ISO @ f/4".

They ONLY good feature about the TTL wireless systems is the use of high speed flash abilities off the camera; 1/8000th shutter speed with flash was fun to use for model shoots in the sun. Turn day to night with very minimal gear. Worth it for that? Not to me too much considering the I seldom shoot that or need to shoot day to night stills anymore. If I want day to night stills, I'll just wait till its night...


I do have to say that I do want to try out their CyberSync Plus systems to remotely control my White lightnings. If I was you, I'd grab 4 of their CyberSync Battery receivers ($70 each) so you can use them for both your speedlights and studio gear with a normal CyberSync Trigger ($60). Or get the Plus system for not much more.

10/7/2013 4:59:48 PM

Flickr has changed the way you view your photostream yet again, now I can't figure out how to view my images at different resolutions.

Nevertheless, here's one that people shouldn't need my help to identify.

10/9/2013 11:43:59 PM

i hope they didn't take that away for some odd reason. That was one thing I loved about using Flickr

10/10/2013 8:06:18 AM

Well, if you can at least remember the standard sizes and the link suffix that relates to it, you can just change that part out when you grab the link. I'm hoping that it's still just unfinished, but my friend convinced me to click the preview to check it out, now I can't change it back.

I didn't describe it right, though. The photostream isn't what has changed. It's the image viewer itself. If this doesn't improve, this might be what drives me over the edge with regards to Flickr. My friend is trying to convince me to get on 500px.com. Anyone have any experience with that?

10/10/2013 2:10:40 PM

^There's a discussion on the last page about 500px. I don't believe they allow hotlinking from there site and have disabled right clicking images. You may be able to change that in settings though.

You may want to look at hosting your own galleries through zenfolio or photoshelter. They will cost, but with the quality of your work, you could easily set up their ecommerce system and sell prints or digitial rights. Once it's set up, its pretty hands off, you just upload your photos and the site handle sales, orders, shipping and billing, they take their cut and then send the rest to you.

I'm working on getting a photoshelter site up for client galleries, and its pretty easy to get it together, organize everything and set print and pricing policies. It took about 30 minutes to get it together and another 15 to set-up for prints. It's pretty bare right now since most of what I've got now is private galleries for clients, but to give you an idea http://austindowd.photoshelter.com
I can set individual photos or albums to allow hotlinking or disable right clicking. It's pretty bare right now, but I can PM you a client gallery and password so you can see how its set-up for e-commerce.

As for flickr, I'm starting to move away from it. The community is WAY to large to be beneficial, and the people looking through my galleries are randos and creeps.
Example: Got an e-mail that a user added my photo to his "favorites list:


The user's name was "legman" and when I check his gallery it's just hundreds of shots of women's legs. A little skeeved out that something so innocent as a college assignment is now feeding some guys fetish. Soon as I finish my site and photoshelter site, I'm dismantling my flickr.

[Edited on October 10, 2013 at 2:58 PM. Reason : ]

10/10/2013 2:57:29 PM

http://www.flickr.com/photos/103789266@N06/with/10085469614/


I just got a new Canon T3i and started playing around with it. I don't know the first thing about photography. I'm just sort of doing a trial and error thing. I started a flickr to share anything I think turns out OK. Right now I'm mostly using it fully manual because I can't figure out how to get it to do the things I want like focus on something that isn't in the center of the frame (and metering seems to be based off the center of the frame too). I just saw this thread and figured I could learn something from it.

*add to my topics*

10/10/2013 3:22:35 PM

Your focus is going to be dependent on you flipping a switch on the lens. If you take a look at it, you'll see a little slide switch with an A and an M. A is for auto, M is for manual (mindblowing, I know). That only has to do with your control of the focus (manual) versus the camera's control of the focus (auto). If you want to focus on something the autofocus can't really target (typically something very tiny or not high enough contrast against other objects for it to notice it...or you just don't have a steady hand), go for manual. To manually adjust the focus, you need to play with the ring on the barrel of the lens. If it's a prime lens (does not zoom), it only has one ring on the barrel. If it's a zoom lens, it'll have two rings: one for focus, one for adjusting zoom.

When I started off (circa 2008), I mixed use of manual and programmed auto (the 'P' setting on the wheel). You learn nothing if you already know nothing if you use the auto setting. But if you really want to get a half-decent shot and can't figure it out with auto, auto is an option to get the shot before the opportunity is gone.

In my opinion, and what I always tell everyone I know that's new to DSLRs, is you need to start off by concentrating on 3 things: shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. Learn how each affects your photos separately, then learn how they work together. The pros can probably step in and tell you exactly how much of a change in each of those values will affect your exposure, but I learned from experience and never read a thing (not that reading about the basics is a bad thing).

Having only owned 2 bodies, both of which were Rebels (XTi, then T2i), my advice on settings you should try to stick with is:
1) Try not to use ISO>400 if you don't have to. Noise starts becoming very noticeable around ISO 800 and more so the higher it goes. With a busier or more textured shot, the noise won't be as noticeable at high ISO. Someone can elaborate if they know the specifics, but increasing the ISO increases the sensitivity of the sensor to light, which you need for a proper exposure. But that comes with the tradeoff of noise (i.e., that grainy texture in photos).
2) I shoot 99.9% of the time handheld. If you don't want that shitty looking blurry photo, you'll want to go for 1/200 sec shutter speed. Maybe not so much if you're shooting very wide or otherwise shooting with a big lens, but 1/200 sec is the point where any more time the shutter is open, and my hand moves enough for it to be noticeable in the image. Now you can also go for slower shutter speed if blur is something you actually want in your photo. But I'm one of those people who has almost never wanted blur.
3) Aperture relates to your depth of field, which is essentially the range in the depth of your image that falls into focus versus what's out of focus. Higher f-stop = greater depth of field = greater depth in focus = smaller aperture = less light hitting your sensor (which, when your light for the exposure is limited, can make your image dark, but technically not in the same way a fast shutter speed does). Lower f-stop = less depth of field = very narrow portion of image in focus = larger aperture = more light hitting your sensor. All of this is considering all other settings on your camera remain the same.

If you're shooting manual and you have no idea if the settings you chose will produce a properly exposed image or not, there's something on your camera to tell you so. As you look through the viewfinder, you'll notice a graduated bar at the bottom that runs from -2 to +2. Half-press the shutter as you look through the viewfinder, and you'll see a blinking bar somewhere in that range. That tells you what your camera perceives as the exposure, given your chosen settings. In the vast majority of cases, you want to have the settings to where the blinking bar falls on the zero. -2 is way underexposed (blacker image = not enough light for exposure), +2 is way overexposed (whiter image = too much light for proper exposure). Look at your LCD screen, and you'll notice the same exact thing. So you can get a rough idea of the exposure whether you look through the viewfinder or look at your LCD.

Those are the most important basics I wish someone had told me when I started. It took me about a year to get a decent idea how it all worked together. Instead, the only advice I got was "shoot in manual so you can figure out how the camera works, otherwise you bought a really expensive point and shoot."

Good luck, and the pros might have different approaches they'd like to explain.

10/10/2013 8:56:13 PM

So I've got a D70s with a Nikon 28-100 and Nikon 70-300 lenses, along with some random extras like a wide angle/macro lens, a few filters, Jenis battery grip, battery charger, 2 carry bags, a Davis and Sanford tripod, and a Sunpak flash.

I realize I've n00bed all over myself with these descriptions, but how much is this stuff worth?

10/10/2013 9:38:29 PM

Quote :

"shoot in manual so you can figure out how the camera works, otherwise you bought a really expensive point and shoot"

Yes I've been forcing myself to do this. Almost exclusively shooting in the manual "M" mode or the aperture priority "Ax" mode with manual focus since it never seems to focus where I want it to. I've noticed pretty much what you said about the ISO. The aperture's effect on depth of field doesn't seem very pronounced unless you zoom WAY in or put the camera right up against your subject and even then my eyes aren't good enough to see the difference in the viewfinder.

I bought from buydig as a kit (Body, 18-55mm EF-S IS lense, 75-300mm EF lense, bag, tripod, a cheap filter kit, spare battery, and a handful of other goodies). I would post a link but the bundle I got isn't listed anymore.

I also don't have any software for post processing besides what comes with the camera. Basically all I can do is white balance adjustment, sharpen/soften, denoise, etc. I need to learn to use GiMP or Photoshop or something.

This is my favorite shot so far. Unfortunately the jpg compression settings on Flickr add some kind of color banding artifact that's not on the original image. (Better 8mb version in the link at the bottom)

Less Compressed version (http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5512/10085469614_d410f54b76_o.jpg)

10/10/2013 11:42:57 PM

I don't know if you get the same software with the t3i as I got with the t2i, but as much shit as my friends give me about it, I take care of almost all of my post-processing needs with Canon Digital Photo Professional, which came with my camera.

Another thing that took me a loooong time to learn was to shoot in RAW. I did JPEG for the longest time and just tried to compensate I could by fucking with color curves. Then one day, I just decided to give RAW a try and realized how much of a difference it made. You can compensate your exposure, change your settings, and more.

10/10/2013 11:56:16 PM

Yeah one of the first things I did is switch it to RAW.

10/11/2013 12:28:16 PM

my wife has a T3i - she's getting handy with it and I want to get her a shoe mount flash for the camera. any recommendations on one that won't break the bank. this is her learning one, so I'd prefer to start under $150 if possible

10/11/2013 7:52:50 PM

^not sure what's available in that range but make sure to get a swivel head. Being able to aim your flash up, back or to the side will bring a whole new level to her understanding of manipulating light.

Also, look around for an off camera ETTL cord. They're cheap and will allow her to take the flash off camera to hold in her free hand.

10/11/2013 8:13:08 PM

^Yea, might want to check camera stores or Craigslist for a slightly older model. Alternatively you could look at the off-brand chinese flashes. YMMV in both cases though so buyer beware.

10/11/2013 8:19:48 PM

Also keep an eye out on Craigslist and EBay. You can get pretty good deals. I'd suggest a 430ex II if you can find one for the right price. And I second the off-shoe cord.

10/11/2013 9:18:36 PM

Where can I take my Nikon and all the lenses to get cleaned and serviced or whatever? I have ambrosia1231's old set up and have never had it cleaned.

10/12/2013 9:56:03 AM

Peace camera or Southeastern are the two in Raleigh I can think of.

10/12/2013 10:04:02 AM

Awesome. Thanks. She always took it to Wolf Camera and all the ones I know of have closed.

10/12/2013 10:12:54 AM

Whoever was talking about flickr's new layout as it relates to picture sizes, you right click on the picture and then it will give you the options for different sizes.

10/12/2013 10:22:47 AM

Peace will clean your camera for free, as long as it is a dry cleaning. They will charge if they have to do a detailed cleaning. Major props for that.

10/12/2013 11:03:25 AM

Peace has taken the top spot. Thanks guys. I have lots of lenses and filters and a tripod, what are some other basic essentials for taking baby pics. I'm actually pretty good at capturing candid shots of kids, but I've never tried to take newborn pics or posed pics at all.

10/12/2013 11:09:17 AM

Quote :

"Whoever was talking about flickr's new layout as it relates to picture sizes, you right click on the picture and then it will give you the options for different sizes."

Are you sure yours has not switched to the new image viewer? I'm not talking about the photostream view that rolled out earlier this year. Because I've always right-clicked my images to choose the resolution I wanted. Not working for me anymore, and I can't figure out how to revert to the old image viewer.

10/12/2013 11:38:50 AM

Mayhaps

10/12/2013 11:54:40 AM

somerecentshows







bigger versions http://alexbroadwell.tumblr.com

[Edited on October 15, 2013 at 12:18 PM. Reason : ;.]

10/15/2013 12:11:37 PM

Quote :

"What wireless triggers are you using Jeff? I am putting them on the Christmas list. I have 4 speed lights and 3 studio strobes, so I am thinking about mixing it up and trying to get this:"

I use Pixel King (second generation) wireless system, it cost same as the CyberSync, but offers e-ttl communication and HSS like JBaz mentioned. If you are working with flashlights, ETTL will save you lots of running around and changing flash output settings, everything can be done directly from the camera (or from transmitter body itself in 3rd generation system) It can also trigger studio strobes. I've talked to some event photographers use the same system but shoot more than I do, and no issues with durability or reliability.

10/15/2013 1:31:43 PM

forgot the link.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=pixel%20king

3rd gen ones are apparently compatible with new Canon and Nicon flashes that have built-in wireless receivers

10/15/2013 2:13:51 PM

Those are actually pretty cool.

Honestly, I think Canon's ETTL tech is a few years behind Nikon; every time I use Nikon systems with multiple ETTL slave speedlites, they work perfectly. Canon? I'd have to fight it every step of the way and play with the settings; test shot 2-4 times and then take the photo. Even when the scenario and variables stays the same.

Reason why I like shooting oldschool manual, I like to stay in full control, but I do like the idea of the CyberSycn Commander that can remotely control the output of all your lights. I've setup multiple strobes for event photography and just moved around. Its more work, more math involved and it tends to limit what areas you can and can't shoot, but its something about lighting an entire venue with a few strobes at ISO 100 that really makes the IQ something special.

10/15/2013 6:29:08 PM

the film thread is dead as balls, i'm just going to post these here



[Edited on October 18, 2013 at 11:00 AM. Reason : ;.]

10/18/2013 11:00:15 AM

I don't even know what is going on with those

I've been messing around with my camera in manual or using one of the M-A-S-P modes making some adjustments. It's clear I still need to figure out what the hell I'm doing, but oh well. (I've never used anything other than a point and shoot until this point).

Anyway, I am happy enough so far with my shots of things closer up. These are two I took earlier today for our living room:







But when I start doing full-room shots (which is one main reason I got the camera), it just starts going to crap sometimes and my focus is soft all over and I'm just not happy with the shots. I've tried using manual focus (which is what I did with the top 2 photos up there) and auto-focus (the picture of my wife and dog) and they all turn out pretty good with anything reasonably close. But once I start shooting a room it just doesn't feel like it is as crisp.

Is this typical and a limitation of my equipment? Is it just harder to get the hang of getting an entire room into good focus? Any general tips you can give me or should I try and take some more full-room pictures and post them here? (I wasn't happy with any of them and just deleted them, which now I regret since I could have posted some here).

Thinking back, it could also have more to do with lighting and proper aperture and ISO settings? My outdoor shots with lots of natural light don't seem to have this issue, but inside, even in rooms that get a lot of natural light, I have trouble sometimes. Perhaps it's just time to get a tripod for the internal shots. Some outside shots I was happy with:





Also, I guess I need to be better about documenting what worked and what didn't work, otherwise all the tinkering in manual won't do me one bit of good. I was happy with those first two shots, but I don't remember which settings I was using.



[Edited on October 18, 2013 at 4:07 PM. Reason : ]

[Edited on October 18, 2013 at 4:14 PM. Reason : ]

10/18/2013 3:57:25 PM

Quote :

"But when I start doing full-room shots (which is one main reason I got the camera), it just starts going to crap sometimes and my focus is soft all over and I'm just not happy with the shots. I've tried using manual focus (which is what I did with the top 2 photos up there) and auto-focus (the picture of my wife and dog) and they all turn out pretty good with anything reasonably close. But once I start shooting a room it just doesn't feel like it is as crisp."

I can't tell you much about depth of field, but what I do know is wider aperture (lower f) = less depth of field, narrower aperture = greater depth of field. Depth of field also increases when you zoom out and get farther away from your subject.

What I've found is even seemingly well-lit rooms have far less light than outdoor settings (even though they may seem just as bright to your eye) and they will likely require much longer exposures or higher ISO. The following sample was shot at ISO 100, f/7.1, and a 0.5 second exposure time. I shot this handheld on a moving cruise ship so it isn't as sharp as it could be.

(These hotlinks should work... didn't want to pollute my flickr)

100% Crop:



Scaled image:

10/20/2013 6:36:30 PM

The issue with indoor photography is likely affected by both your lens and your settings. The basic kit lens can be decently sharp, but the fall off in sharpness when shooting with the lens wide can be pronounced. Additionally depth of field is probably what is really killing it. If you were shooting with it at say f/4, you run into multiple issues. First, the obvious being that shallow depth of field means less of the image will be in focus if it is not on the focal plane. Additionally, with a cheaper lens, shooting at f/4 may be wide open for your lens. If I am doing the same shot with my 14-24mm 2.8 lens, then I am not shooting wide open for my lens. Optically it's better, but the added advantage of not being at the widest aperture possible means that I will likely have a sharper image. And as stated earlier, interior lighting is going to give you far less light to work with than sunlight on a bright day. To shoot at 1/200th of a second shutter speed outside, you may be at f/11. Indoors for the same shot you might be at f/3.5 and 1/30th of a second on shutter speed. Either of which can be a problem, but without your original shot, it is hard to say.

10/20/2013 7:16:09 PM

thank you for the responses; I appreciate the feedback a lot. Those both make a lot of sense and seem in line with all the reading I did this weekend. As far as wide-angle shots, I don't plan on having any better glass besides the kit lens for awhile. So, I think a tripod and remote release would help me eek out a little extra clarity while maximizing my exposure with indoor lighting conditions and lenses I have available for different shots. I may pick up one of the 35mm or 55mm lenses that are in the ~$200 range but look much better than my kit lens - but the wide angles that would be a noticeable step up from my kit lens are a lot of money and I'm just doing this for fun.

This is a picture I took this afternoon. I took a lot of pictures at different settings, so I don't know exactly what settings were on this particular shot unfortunately. It is cropped and I did use the smartfix in PS Elements and did a little manual white balancing (just based on my own eye and adjusting color curves) so this isn't the image straight from the camera.

Far from perfect and maybe overexposed but it is a LOT better than what I was getting on Friday and much closer to the kind of shots I am wanting to take indoors.



[Edited on October 20, 2013 at 9:50 PM. Reason : ]

10/20/2013 9:22:04 PM

Woot, Start guest teaching at the Arts Institute in two weeks. Kinda excited, but at the same time a bit reserved. Not exactly sure what I'll start with.

10/20/2013 11:43:20 PM

10/21/2013 9:48:10 PM

Great shot, is that a crop or did you splice shots?

10/21/2013 9:53:10 PM

Thanks... I think its around 6 shots combined in photoshop.

10/21/2013 9:55:24 PM

I'm trying to figure out if I can actually share my images from my 500px...

nevermind, that's a bit on the giant side.

I guess it's nice that 500px doesn't simply let you left-click to save an image, but it's a little disappointing that all you have to do is hold shift, then left-click to do so. It also doesn't seem like you can link your own images very easily...basically only one resolution available (whatever you uploaded).

[Edited on October 23, 2013 at 12:54 PM. Reason : ds]

10/23/2013 12:51:29 PM

JBaz which AI campus are you gonna be teaching at, Raleigh/Durham one?

CalledToArms For practice, try shooting those two porcelain figures you posted in a location with slightly more directional light. You can use a a room with dark walls and just one window, or one off camera flash shooting through a softbox if you already own a flash (softbox can be made from a cardboard box and a sheet of fabric). Use a large piece of paper or aluminum foil positioned near the object to bounce light as needed. Those porcelains are PERFECT for illustrating how size and shape of the light source can affect shadows, how light can wrap around an object, how reflected light can be used to create multiple light sources, how a texture of the object affects reflections, how color of surrounding can create a color cast on your object. As you shoot, try moving the objects closer to the window and then further away from it. Try using dark, light, and colored backgrounds/placemat (use colored paper), and try shooting with the key light (window in your case) positioned at every angle in relation to the object. Also find another small statuette that's dark in color, and do the same with it. You can learn a lot on this small scale and neutral colors, and then transfer that knowledge directly to photographing life-size, full-color objects.


[Edited on October 23, 2013 at 1:27 PM. Reason : .]

10/23/2013 1:25:32 PM

Quote :

"I don't even know what is going on with those "

They're shot with a 4-lens film camera which takes 4 half-35mm frames, then animated in photoshop, if that makes sense.



[Edited on October 23, 2013 at 1:44 PM. Reason : .]

10/23/2013 1:44:26 PM