• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

5 small photo tips for cool convention pics.

Started by montrealfilmguy,

69 posts in this topic

montrealfilmguy

montrealfilmguy

Posted
  • Author
Posted
True Pov,but i was trying to stay in the low-budget side of things.

 

(thumbs u

 

btw,i'll have the T4i in my hands before the Mtl con. :whee:

 

 

I'm interested on your take of the T4i. Touch screen interface sounds intriguing.

 

 

Yes,that should be quite good providing it works efficiently.

 

not much of a steep learning curve nowadays,and i like the pinch zoom part,it'd be great for checking sharpness at 100% quickly.

 

silent focusing during video is also a huge plus.

And i truly love flip-out screens for shooting over crowds or down on the ground where you dont have to remember all Yoga 101 positions for shooting babies,plants or insects.

 

lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PovertyRow

PovertyRow

Posted
Posted

And i truly love flip-out screens for shooting over crowds or down on the ground where you dont have to remember all Yoga 101 positions for shooting babies,plants or insects.

 

lol

 

The swivel is huge. And it is VERY solidly built. Here's a shot I took with the swivel facing straight up as the camera was literally on the ground. Saves my aging body!

 

swivel-flowers.jpg

 

And a more useful swivel feature is to be less obvious when shooting. This can come in handy at cons, so you aren't holding a camera to your face pointing directly at the subject. I took this on a bus with a Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro lens. Had the screen angled so as not to look directly at the people.

 

bus-read.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BaltimoreLauren

BaltimoreLauren

Posted
Posted

My ex is a photographer, and he didn't always use a polarizing lens. Even I don't think their entirely needed.

 

 

But the ISO thing is probably the most important thing in taking pictures. Ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Transplant

Transplant

Posted
Posted
Thought I'd bump this as con season is starting back up and con reports are coming in and so far most of you people's photos suck :baiting:

I use the best camera, the one I've got with me. I use my phone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Troll King

The Troll King

Posted
Posted
My ex is a photographer, and he didn't always use a polarizing lens. Even I don't think their entirely needed.

 

 

But the ISO thing is probably the most important thing in taking pictures. Ever.

 

Here's something to remember about ISO's

 

It's a trade off.

You're going to get much better quality and sharper photos with lower ISOs, always.

 

Digital cameras are specifically designed to perform their best at the lowest possible ISO.

 

What creates that nice depth of field blur (bokeh) that you see in the OP's original images is the aperture setting (the F-Stop) and the focal length of the lens.

 

Since I've told you that a lower ISO produces a sharper image this is when you play with your shutter speed and F-stops until you get to the correct exposure.

 

Here's an example:

Let's say you take a photo of something and you have a shutter speed of 1/125 (that's based on a single second so the the speed would be 1/125 of a second).

Your ISO is set to 1600 and your aperture (f-stop) is set to 7.0

If the available light creates an accurate exposure with these settings then this would be equal to having your camera set at ISO 100 F 7.0 and a shutter speed of 1/30

The primary difference here is that if you viewed both images at 100% on your computer side by side you would see a very noticable amount of pixelation (noise) in the image shot at the higher ISO.

 

The problem that many encounter is that in low light situations 1/30 of a shutter is far too slow for many to hand hold the camera without unnecessary blur. This is when you start adjusting your ISO up until you can get to a shutter speed that allows you to hand hold without using a tripod.

 

Keep in mind too, most lens are capable of hand holding and achieving sharp images as speeds equal to their focal length.

 

Here's my (cropped) recent example to explain some of this.

 

This was shot at ISO 100 @1/50th and F2.8 with a 30mm prime lens at about 3 feet from the subject.

 

135950.jpg.d23223fa6779ac38b11bbce4e5fa17dd.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
slym2none

slym2none

Posted
Posted

I have an older but not-yet-outdated Kodak Z712IS, and for most things, I leave it on the auto-set. Either moving objects or low-light situations is where I go into the manual settings, and I am glad my brother took photography courses and taught me how to use them decently.

 

I am still no pro, though... last Memorial Day, I walked the Manhattan Bridge to get shots of the "twin towers of light" behind the Brooklyn Bridge and had mixed results with the auto-settings, yet my manual pics were not much better.

 

*sigh*

 

 

 

-slym

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HighRadArt

HighRadArt

Posted
Posted
My ex is a photographer, and he didn't always use a polarizing lens. Even I don't think their entirely needed.

 

 

But the ISO thing is probably the most important thing in taking pictures. Ever.

 

Here's something to remember about ISO's

 

It's a trade off.

You're going to get much better quality and sharper photos with lower ISOs, always.

 

Digital cameras are specifically designed to perform their best at the lowest possible ISO.

 

What creates that nice depth of field blur (bokeh) that you see in the OP's original images is the aperture setting (the F-Stop) and the focal length of the lens.

 

Since I've told you that a lower ISO produces a sharper image this is when you play with your shutter speed and F-stops until you get to the correct exposure.

 

Here's an example:

Let's say you take a photo of something and you have a shutter speed of 1/125 (that's based on a single second so the the speed would be 1/125 of a second).

Your ISO is set to 1600 and your aperture (f-stop) is set to 7.0

If the available light creates an accurate exposure with these settings then this would be equal to having your camera set at ISO 100 F 7.0 and a shutter speed of 1/30

The primary difference here is that if you viewed both images at 100% on your computer side by side you would see a very noticable amount of pixelation (noise) in the image shot at the higher ISO.

 

The problem that many encounter is that in low light situations 1/30 of a shutter is far too slow for many to hand hold the camera without unnecessary blur. This is when you start adjusting your ISO up until you can get to a shutter speed that allows you to hand hold without using a tripod.

 

Keep in mind too, most lens are capable of hand holding and achieving sharp images as speeds equal to their focal length.

 

Here's my (cropped) recent example to explain some of this.

 

This was shot at ISO 100 @1/50th and F2.8 with a 30mm prime lens at about 3 feet from the subject.

 

 

Great information although I would be more worried about fogging up my lens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Troll King

The Troll King

Posted
Posted
My ex is a photographer, and he didn't always use a polarizing lens. Even I don't think their entirely needed.

 

 

But the ISO thing is probably the most important thing in taking pictures. Ever.

 

Here's something to remember about ISO's

 

It's a trade off.

You're going to get much better quality and sharper photos with lower ISOs, always.

 

Digital cameras are specifically designed to perform their best at the lowest possible ISO.

 

What creates that nice depth of field blur (bokeh) that you see in the OP's original images is the aperture setting (the F-Stop) and the focal length of the lens.

 

Since I've told you that a lower ISO produces a sharper image this is when you play with your shutter speed and F-stops until you get to the correct exposure.

 

Here's an example:

Let's say you take a photo of something and you have a shutter speed of 1/125 (that's based on a single second so the the speed would be 1/125 of a second).

Your ISO is set to 1600 and your aperture (f-stop) is set to 7.0

If the available light creates an accurate exposure with these settings then this would be equal to having your camera set at ISO 100 F 7.0 and a shutter speed of 1/30

The primary difference here is that if you viewed both images at 100% on your computer side by side you would see a very noticable amount of pixelation (noise) in the image shot at the higher ISO.

 

The problem that many encounter is that in low light situations 1/30 of a shutter is far too slow for many to hand hold the camera without unnecessary blur. This is when you start adjusting your ISO up until you can get to a shutter speed that allows you to hand hold without using a tripod.

 

Keep in mind too, most lens are capable of hand holding and achieving sharp images as speeds equal to their focal length.

 

Here's my (cropped) recent example to explain some of this.

 

This was shot at ISO 100 @1/50th and F2.8 with a 30mm prime lens at about 3 feet from the subject.

 

 

Great information although I would be more worried about fogging up my lens.

 

???

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dupont2005

dupont2005

Posted
Posted
Oh hell,no (tsk)

 

It may say 8 megapixels on your phone but the lens is the size of a bug on a bug which defeats the purpose on most of these.

 

Even Iphones.

what about this?

eba9_olloclip_iphone_camera_lens.jpg

I can't afford a DSLR and kinda like having a camera in my pocket :blush:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Troll King

The Troll King

Posted
Posted

It should be mentioned as far as HD video is concerned that the GoPro cameras are showing some impressive work but they ideally need to be mounted to a steady cam apparatus.

 

That said, even with a DSLR you can get an inexpensive steady cam apparatus. Of course you won't find HD video is the lower models of DSLR's though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
James Howlett

James Howlett

Posted
Posted
It should be mentioned as far as HD video is concerned that the GoPro cameras are showing some impressive work but they ideally need to be mounted to a steady cam apparatus.

 

That said, even with a DSLR you can get an inexpensive steady cam apparatus. Of course you won't find HD video is the lower models of DSLR's though.

 

Pretty much all DSLRs the past few years have HD video, even the lower models. ( like canon t3, t2i, t3i,t4i, Nikon d3100/3200.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing