Launch of Mitchell Kanashkevich's Captivating Color

Occasionally, scenes do grab me by the neck and scream, "Mic, you've got to be an idiot not to see color here!"

No, this blog is not the official fan page for Mitchell Kanashkevich.  Just when I do a review of Mitchell Kanashkevich's Understanding Post-Processing, he comes out with a third e-book, Captivating Color: A Guide to Dramatic Color Photography. Pure coincidence I assure you.  Anyway, pay attention because you don't want to miss an amazing offer.



To be honest, except for scenes that just scream color like the one above, I haven't given color a lot of thought beyond correcting white balance, moving that vibrancy slider up, and noticing serendipitous color wheel combinations.  Mitchell, however, gives it as much weight as composition and lighting. 

Here's our chance to see what color can do our photography -- essentially for free.  For this week:
- the book is on sale for $15 instead of $20.
- get a chance to win an iPad 2!
- best of all, with this order, you also get Mitchell's first book, Seeing the Light.

Guys, I've downloaded Seeing the Light (got it after reading Understanding Post-Processing) and it alone is worth the entrance price (review coming soon).  If you would buy Seeing the Light for $12 then getting both books for the price of one book is kinda like getting this one for free!

Mitchell is so confident that you'll master color with this guide that he offers a 60 day money-back guarantee.  Get it here.

Read More

In Retrospect: Search for Second Flash

Baby Soft

When my Yongnuo YN-560 flash got fried (or rather, drowned), I started looking for another flash.  Although I was satisfied with the YN-560, I got an Nikon SB-600 as a replacement, primarily for the remote adjustment capability.  I thought I'd update everyone on what I think of that choice in retrospect.

(Hit the jump)

The YN-560 and other manual flashes excel as a second or third flash if used for setup shots.  It's hard to beat the value that the YN-560 offers, especially now that it's been updated (with a metal foot and apparently much greater reliability).


However, I take mostly candid, non-setup photos and I rely heavily on TTL when using flash.  For my kind of photography, I've found that a flash that can operate wirelessly on TTL is a tremendously useful tool.  While I used the YN-560 primarily for setup shots as a rim light or other accent light, the availability of wireless TTL on the SB-600 meant that I could use it not just for special effects but also to work with my SB-800 as key or fill light.  So I've been using the SB-600 far more often than I did the YN-560.

The shot above shows what I mean.  In terms of lighting, I used the popup flash (covered with SG-3IR) as commander, then used the SB-800 and SB-600 as slaves in separate TTL groups.  I've found that with 2 TTL groups, it's possible to improve upon single-TTL flash image.  (That's another topic I will cover in the future).  For now, just to show that not all of the result was due to postprocessing, here is the unedited shot:

original unedited shot

Do I have any issues with the SB-600?  Sure I do.
1. The CLS sensor on the SB-600 is acceptable but is not as sensitive as that of the SB-800 or even the YN-560. 
2. Cumbersome controls.  It takes more than a few button pushes to operate the wireless menu.
3. No commander capability.  Right now I'm forced to use the SB-800 on-camera as commander while using only the SB-600 as a slave.  If the SB-600 could have been used as a commander flash, I would have been able to use the more powerful SB-800 as a slave instead.

Well, #2 and #3 in that short list have been addressed in the SB-700.  As for #1, I don't know about the SB-700's actual sensitivity, but I'm guessing the CLS sensor sensitivity on the SB-700 is similar to that of the SB-800.  So if I had to do it over again, far from regretting the extra I paid to get the SB-600 over the YN-560, I would actually choose to buy an SB-700 instead of an SB-600.

Read More

Understanding Post-Processing by Mitchell Kanashkevich

cover of Understanding Post-Processing

 Besides Rick Sammon's Light It! app, another tutorial I read over the weekend and that I'm excited about is Mitchell Kanashkevich's ebook Understanding Post-Processing.  Whereas Rick Sammon's app is addressed toward beginners and novices, Mitchell's ebook is primarily for intermediate or advanced amateurs and even pros.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Mitchell Kanashkevich is a travel photographer who's career as a pro started taking off not too long ago.  He's very modest about describing how he got there, but his gallery shows that his newfound success in his photographic career is no accident.

ABOUT THE EBOOK
Many times, I've taken photos of scenes that had gorgeous lighting to my mind's eye but I felt I was unable to recreate that beauty in the photo that I took.  When I saw Mitchell's photos, I thought that many of his final images glowed with the kind of light that I have sometimes seen and sought to capture.

Mitchell has two ebooks, Seeing the Light and this one, Understanding Post-Processing.  I thought to myself: I've seen beautiful light, so perhaps his first ebook is not the critical piece that I'm missing.  I figured I would probably get his first ebook eventually, but I thought I had more to learn from his second book.

Mitchell's ebook is written with Photoshop and Lightroom in mind, though the techniques can be translated to other software as well, including Photoshop Elements 9 (whew, thank goodness).  His book assumes that the reader already has a good working knowledge of postprocessing programs, so it's not for the postprocessing novice and is written pithily (really -- it's 37 pages).  If, for example, layer masking is new to you, you might find this book challenging.  Rather, his book is for a reader who knows the technical steps of using various features of postprocessing programs, but is looking for direction in applying those techniques to photos.  (That's exactly where I am right now.)

Mitchell first discusses briefly the main tools that he uses, then he goes through 5 case studies of how he used those tools to achieve his final results, step-by-step.  In describing his steps, Mitchell explains his thought process, and shows the settings he used together with screen captures of the edits.  See thumbnails of his book at his website here.  The case studies all follow a similar process, but each one emphasizes a particular tool, thus providing readers with a view of Mitchell's general postprocessing workflow, as well as a better understanding of how particular tools can be used.

How well does the book fulfill its promise?  If you're a photographer with the level of postprocessing skill for whom this ebook is intended, none of the techniques are truly novel or earth-shattering.  However, this guide afforded me a glimpse into a gifted photographer's thoughts as he works on his images, and walking through the images showed me not only how he realizes his creative vision, but more importantly for my purposes, gave me insight and direction for elevating my post-processing work.

Read More

Junior Strobist in Training

The photo above is not a self-portrait.  It's actually our toddler's first strobist (i.e., off-camera flash) photo!  As you can see, with some lighting technique, even a child can take a decent photo. :)

Strobist/lighting info: the key light was a small softbox on an SB-800 mounted on-camera, also acting as CLS commander for the rim light, which was an SB-600.  Both flashes were on TTL.

Read More

Preview of Rick Sammon's Light It! for iOS

Hey everyone!  I downloaded Rick Sammon's Light It! for iOS last night and I'm just halfway through but it's excellent and I would readily recommend it. 

 

Light It! is an app with video tutorials on techniques for taking photos of people.  Like the title says, much of the focus is on getting good light on the subject, both ambient and flash.  Here's an excerpt: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbpMhBs47Hg

 

I found the tutorials to provide a good intro to lighting concepts.  If you're somewhat new to photography and haven't yet been thinking seriously about the lighting of your photos, this app will help open your eyes to the possibilities.  Even an intermediate amateur who is already familiar with lighting concepts will find useful tips.  In addition to lighting techniques, Rick provides great tips for taking photos of people, such as how to approach strangers for portraits.  Most importantly for me, I found the videos inspiring because the photos are beautiful and simply executed -- perfect for family photogs like us.

 

Like I said, I'm not yet done watching it and ordinarily, I would finish it before posting about it here but Rick's got a sale going on.  Most sales are nice but don't get you moving.  Well, this one may just get you off your behind.  Ordinarily, Light It (for iPad) is $10.99 but until March 31st it's on sale for just $2.99 (that's over 70% off!!!).  The iPhone/iPod version, Light It Light!, is also on sale for just $1.99!  That's less than a fast food burger for over an hour and a half of tutorials! 

 

BTW the difference between the versions is that Light It Light! does not include the before and after photos, and does not have a library (I'm not sure though what the library contains).  I downloaded Light It Light because I only have an iPhone (I gave the iPad to my wife) and I wanted to watch the videos anywhere.  But I'm so impressed with the app that I will also download the iPad version for the photo gallery, and the library will be a bonus.  So, yes, I would pay twice for it!  How's that for an endorsement? :D

 

*Note: I will be updating this post with more details on the app when I'm finished with it, probably this weekend.  I'm not guaranteeing that I will finish before the 31st though.*

 

BTW, both are huge apps (1.5GB and 700MB respectively) so just download it on your desktop.  iOS 4.x required.

Read More

Seller Rating Is Not a Guarantee

(I promise this will be the last post on scams - at least for a while!)

 

The hypothetical seller in yesterday's post about scams targetting sellers was me of course.  Not that hard to guess :) .  Yeah, I've been thinking of upgrading my D300 to a D700.  (I debated this with my colleague and fellow blog contributor mshafik -- I'll post that full frame vs. small sensor discussion soon).

 

Interestingly, I found a D700 on sale on Amazon's used marketplace for a little more than $1300 (current final eBay prices are at least $1800+ and usually over $2000).  Unlike the last time I tried to buy a D700, this seller had more than 760 ratings, averaging around 4.5 stars.  The seller was based in Illinois and looked legit.  No strange fine print either.  All it said was, "Used - Like New" and "In Stock."

 

So I ordered the item, using the exact same process as other Amazon purchases, and even got an email confirmation from Amazon.  However, the order didn't show up in my history.  I inquired with the seller but got no response.  Later I inquired with Amazon directly and they confirmed that the seller unilaterally canceled the order.  This morning I finally got a reply from the seller.  Apparently, their Amazon account was hacked and someone posted that amazing deal with the intent to pull a scam.  One indicator was the seller's name: conoverbooks.  As they explained in their email to me, they don't sell camera equipment, and their name was another hint that the sale was not kosher.  I guess I should be thankful that I didn't lose my $1300. 

 

Of course, Amazon accounts aren't the only accounts that can be hacked.  Some eBay accounts have been hacked as well for example.  This episode was a reminder to exercise caution especially when a deal sounds too good to be true, and that seller ratings are helpful but not an iron-clad assurance of legitimacy.

Read More

Caveat Venditor - Seller Beware

Perhaps you've been yearning for a new camera.  Maybe one that's full-frame.  Or has much better high ISO performance.  Or has that one feature missing from your camera that could transform your photography.  So you think about selling your camera to upgrade.  You research the prices online, and advertise your camera at a fair price on craigslist.  You get a few inquiries that are mostly low-ballers.  Then one day you get an offer from someone who's willing to buy your camera at $100 more than the price you offered if you can ship it out of state immediately.  A bit suspicious, you email the seller, expecting that they want to pay by check or some unreliable means.  Instead, you find out they're willing to pay by Paypal as long as there's delivery confirmation.  Shipping out-of-state sounds a little iffy but with Paypal as a form of payment, how can things go wrong?

Here are a few things to watch out for when selling stuff:

1.  Payment by check.  A check can bounce -- Duh Mic, you didn't need to tell me that!

2. Payment by money order, or cashier's check.  Safer than a check right?  Not really.  A money order or cashier's check can be counterfeit, even if it clears the bank.  Here's how one scam works:  The buyer sends you a check with the excess amount.  You deposit it and the check clears.  The buyer asks for a refund of the excess amount.  Since your bank account has been credited with the full amount, you figure it's ok and send the excess.  A couple of weeks later you're notified that the check was counterfeit, and the credit to your account is reversed.  You lose the amount you sent, and if you sent the product, you lose that too.  Plus you might be charged fees by your bank.  See http://www.snopes.com/crime/fraud/cashier.asp .

3.  Payment by credit card.  The problem is that the credit card number may have been stolen.  If the credit card turns out to be stolen, then the card issuer will not pay the seller and the seller loses the product he sold.  See http://www.snopes.com/crime/fraud/cnp.asp .

4. Payment by Paypal.  This is similar to the credit card problem.  If the credit card used to fund the Paypal payment was stolen,

Paypal claims the right to reverse the credit to your account (a chargeback).  If you've already withdrawn the amount from your Paypal account, then Paypal will take the amount from your Paypal-linked bank account.  See http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/30/business-finance-investing/craigslist-paypal-payment-scam-176383/ . See also https://cms.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/?cmd=_render-content&content_ID=security/chargeback_guide .

Here's a sample of an actual offer I got:

"i just went through the listing of your item and would like to know if i can
purchase it for an amount of $900.00 for the item and $100 for the shipping
through USPS INTERNATIONAL EXPRESS MAIL(USPS).If so,i would like you
to send me your
PayPal details and end the listing,so i can send in payment for the item would
also like you to IM or email me at my email address d3williams98@yahoo.com <compose?to=d3williams98@yahoo.com>  for
further correspondence.I am also on MSN IM:bluemooose@hotmail.com <compose?to=bluemooose@hotmail.com>  Hope to hear
from you soon

best wishes
Gary Benz"

And not surprisingly it was followed by:

"this is the name and address that you will need to get the item shipped below

name: Biodun Salawu
addres: no 13 kujore street challenge
city: ibadan
state: oyo
zip code: 23402
country: nigeria

hope to hear from you soon with your paypal account name and email address for your payment.

thanks"

Sure, dude.  It's in the mail. ;)

One common theme in these scams is that they dangle the possibility of a huge reward.  "Sure it looks a bit risky, but what if it's true?"  That's one of the ways the old 419 scam works ( http://www.snopes.com/fraud/advancefee/nigeria.asp ).  If you find yourself thinking along those lines -- STOP.  Or you'll lose your camera, lens, flash, equipment or whatever you're selling.

Here are a couple more tips for sellers:

5. Sob stories.  The buyer will tell you some sad story about a recent tragic event in his/her life (my house was burglarized and my camera got stolen, my mom is sick and her hospital bills are very high, etc.) in an effort to get you to decrease your selling price.  There's a slight possibility that what they're saying is true, but the vast majority of the time, they're grossly exaggerating or simply fabricating their story.  Don't bother trying to poke holes in their story.  When someone engages in this tactic, they're probably already wedded to the idea of getting a spectacular deal.  Unless you're willing to give them that spectacular deal at your expense, don't bother negotiating with them - consider this someone who's not willing to buy your equipment.

6. Moochers.  When you're selling used equipment, you're dealing with buyers who are usually looking for a good deal.  That's to be expected.  The problem is that some buyers may be willing to use any means to get that good deal, regardless of ethics, even if it's at your expense.  In short, they don't respect the golden rule.  When they contact you, they appear to be sincerely interested in purchasing your equipment.  They may even purport to agree to pay full price on the phone, perhaps "subject to inspection."  However, when you actually meet up, they will only be willing to pay far below the fair price for your equipment, resulting in lost time or heaven forbid, selling your stuff far below what it's worth. (This has happened to me twice now.)  You can reduce the number of moochers to deal with by making your price realistic and specifying "fixed" or "firm," indicating that you are not engaging in the haggling game.  It's possible they may still lie but at least you're not painting yourself as a target.  If a buyer you agreed to meet turns out to be one of these ilk, just stick to your guns, don't spend any more time than you already have, and be ready to walk away.  Never be needy, nor do anything that could be misconstrued as neediness or desperation.

You can also ask them about some of their recent photographs.  If they don't sound excited about their own photographic work, you may be dealing with a toy collector, who will be more fixated on the shutter count than getting a tool to fulfill his or her vision.  The times I've successfully sold on craigslist were to buyers who were truly interested in their craft/hobby.  For example, I sold a paraglider to a professional paraglider pilot, and I sold my D80 and Tamron 28-75 to a photography student.

KEEP THINGS IN PERSPECTIVE

Don't get discouraged if you only get calls from lowballers.  There's always ebay.  I've sold a number of things on ebay, such as a Pentax K100D, a couple of lenses, a couple of flashes, and a bunch of non-photo related equipment, all at fair prices (some for more than what I paid).  I find that the prices on ebay are more fair, even after the fees.  Of course, Ebay has its own scams (as well as techniques) but that's for another post.

Be safe out there and if you're selling via craigslist, remember the basic rules: Local, Cash only, and meet only in public places.

Got tips or war stories?  Pls. share them in the comments or email me so I can post them for you.

Read More

Japan's Earthquake Consequences: Canon EF 35mm f/2

If you have read my prime lenses chat article, you should know that I was looking for a wide aperture prime that would give me a 50mm equivalent focal length on my 1.6 crop sensor, I was torn between the Canon EF 35mm f/2 and the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, but Japan's earthquake solved the problem for me. Hit the jump for more.


I was waiting for my camera shop to take delivery of the Sigma 30mm so I can try it for myself because I got some feedback that it's focus might not be that good in low light, not because the lens is bad but because 3rd party manufacturers have to reverse engineer the communication between the lens and the body without any help from the body manufacturer. The Sigma has the edge on the Canon lens in almost every aspect except for the price and the compatibility, however the Canon 35mm is still a great lens, check the pictures in this flickr group.

While waiting for the 30mm Sigma to arrive to try it, we all heard about the earthquake that happened in Japan and affected lots of lives there, I really wish them all the best and a speedy recovery. When I first heard that Canon has stopped it's manufacturing plants in Japan, I realized for the first time how the earthquake could affect lots of industries and brands that we take for granted. Check the latest official announcement from Canon.

I immediately thought this would create a shortage in the lenses market, so I went to B&H to check the Canon 35mm, I found it out of stock with this scary comment: "This item is backordered by the mfr. We have no delivery date at this time.", so I immediately went to Amazon and to my relief I found that they had 6 lenses in stock and I decided to order it. Unfortunately I had some money transfer problem with the bank and would have to wait 2 days before making the order, that was Tuesday, March the 15th at night. When I checked again next morning I found that the stock on Amazon has decreased to 3 lenses instead of 6, so I immediately called one of my friends and asked him to order the lens for me. By the time he ordered the lens there were only 2 in stock and we ordered one of them. Phew!

I had a look at Amazon now and they are out of stock, but you will find a link to buy a new one for $688!!!! I bought the lens for $319, there is also a link to a refurbished one for $399. I went to eBay and the prices there are more expensive than the $319 price I paid. This is crazy, especially for a less known lens like the 35mm f/2.

I am expecting the lens to arrive by the end of the month, expect a post with my first impressions soon after I receive it, the reviews for this lens on the internet are not really satisfying, so I will post my own one as well.

Read More

Macro Talk: Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM

What is a macro lens? What if my zoom lens has a "Macro" designation, are they the same?

Today I am going to chat a little about my experience with a macro lens, and what other situations it can be used for. This is not going to be a macro photography tutorial, but more of a chit chat about macro lenses regardless of the brand. Hit the jump for more.

MAGNIFICATION 

Macro photography can be defined as close-up photography of usually very small subjects. If you ever try shooting objects from a close distance using your non-macro zoom or prime lens, you will find that after getting close for a certain distance, the lens would refuse to focus any closer, this is what defines the magnification factor.

A lens' magnification factor is defined by the physical size of the subject in focus in relation to the sensor size, in other terms, if we assume a 1:1 magnification ratio for a certain lens, this means that it can focus on a subject that would fill the same area of the sensor as its physical size in real life. Imagine a metal coin, now imagine taking a picture of it so close that the coin's image on the sensor is physically the same size as the coin itself. This is called 1:1 magnification, sometimes it is referred to as 1x magnification. True macro lenses can usually achieve 1x magnification, and there are unique macro lenses that can go to as close as 5x magnification.

MACRO LENSES

Now back to the opening question, can your zoom lens (that says "Macro") be a true macro lens? It depends, if we take the saying that true macro lenses are of 1x or greater magnification, then the answer is no, they are not true macros. However, there are some zoom lenses that can focus quite close to the subjects, they usually have around 0.3x to 0.5x magnification at the long end of the zoom, this is actually pretty respectable, check this picture taken with the Canon EF-S 55-250 lens at 0.31x magnification. This picture was taken by dpreview member Charles Durrant, you can see his full gallery here.

0.31x Magnification, Uncropped Image - Click to see a larger version.

Most manufacturers offer macro lenses that are primes (i.e. no zoom), they feature something called a floating lens element that helps them focus at close distances. You will find that Canon and Nikon offer very similar macro lenses, both have 60mm f/2.8 macro (Nikon calls it Micro) lenses, they also both have 100mm f/2.8 macro lenses (Nikon is 105mm). They all offer 1x or 1:1 magnification ratios. Canon also has a less known 50mm f/2.8 macro lens that offers only 0.5x magnification.

WHY DID I GET ONE?

I bought the Canon EF-S 60mm f/2.8 Macro USM for several reasons:

• When I decided to upgrade my standard zoom lens and I decided to buy the Canon EF-S 15-85 f/3.5-5.6 IS USM instead of the Canon EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM, that saved me a difference of almost $400, so when I started looking for lenses that cost this amount of money I found this lens.
• I was also looking for a better replacement for my cheap EF 50mm f/1.8 II, so I thought that since the focal lengths are close, and that I never use my 50mm wider than f/2.8 I might as well replace it with a lens that is/has:

• Eextremely sharp.
• Can focus much closer.
• Internal focusing (i.e. the front element doesn't move or rotate).
• Much faster/silent USM focusing.
• Better colors and contrast.
• Better bokeh.

The Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM was an attractive alternative that is around $100 more expensive, but I chose the 60mm instead because of it's smaller size (it is the same size as the 18-55 kit lens) and faster focus (macro lenses usually have slow focus, especially close to the minimum focusing distance), and not only that, but since I have a 1.6x crop sensor, the 100mm would be 160mm equivalent on my camera which is too long for general usage to a certain extent; unlike the 60mm (96 mm equivalent).

The benefit of the longer focal lengths in macro lenses is the MWD (minimum working distance), if we take my 60mm lens, the MWD is 9cm from the front of the lens, this means that in order to get 1:1 magnification I need to bring the front element of the lens just 9cm close to my subject, imagine trying to get this close to a skittish or a dangerous insect, in contrast the 100mm macro lens has a MWD of 15cm and the 180mm has a MWD of 24cm, I know that these numbers all sound tiny but the difference between 9cm and 15cm while shooting insects could make all the difference.

On the other hand, the side effect of the longer focal lengths is that you need higher shutter speeds to get a blur-free image. Canon has another version of the 100mm f/2.8 macro lens with built-in image stabilization (not usual in primes with this focal length) and the "L" designation, but it is quite expensive.

MACRO LIGHTING

You would imagine that using a macro lens is the same as using a normal lens, and you would be right except that with a macro lens when you get close to 1x magnification, you start losing light. My 60mm for example starts losing light at close ranges until it reaches 2 stops of light loss at 1x magnification, this means that the effective aperture is f/5.6 instead of f/2.8 (regarding light quantity entering, not DoF). If you are using auto modes on the camera like aperture priority or using flash in TTL mode then the camera will auto compensate for the light loss, but if you're metering light manually you need to take it into account, Canon has included a table in the user manual with the light loss values at each magnification level.

There are several ways to light your subjects, available light is always there if you can get acceptable shutter speeds or use a tripod. You can also use the camera's flash or an external flash to light your subject, but sometimes they are not good because you are so close to the subject that the flash has no direct line of sight between it and the subject, that's why there are dedicated macro flashes that are mounted very close to your subject.

A good way to light your subject is by using soft diffused light, this can be achieved using a light source that is larger than your subject, and since we are talking very small subjects, this light source doesn't need to be an octabank or an umbrella, check cheap ways of getting diffused light here and here. You can also go sophisticated with studio strobes like Alex Kolskov here, he's one of my favorite product photographers.

I use myself two different methods, either a flash diffuser mounted on my lens using the camera's pop-up flash (when I need to be discrete) or I use one or two external flashes with very small inflatable softboxes.

P.S. Excuse the quality of the first photo, I had to use my mobile phone.

Cheap Flash Diffuser - Click to see a larger version

Inflatable Softbox - Click to see a larger version

MACRO SHOOTING

Now we come to the fun part, shooting macro with this lens, I will show you some examples and talk a little about each one, you have to keep in mind that at close focusing distances the depth of field becomes in the order of millimeters, here's an example, at 1x magnification using the 60mm lens, the DoF at f/22 is 6.7 millimeters! So you will occasionally find yourself shooting at small apertures to get as much DoF as you can. Add the 2 light loss stops to that and you will see how it quickly becomes hard to light your subject, I once had my 580EX firing at full power in the inflatable softbox and not producing enough light.

The picture below is shot hand held at f/11 using the pop-up flash and the diffuser, there was good ambient light and the flash was used as a fill.

Climbing Ant - Click to see a larger version (f/11 - 1/60 sec - ISO 200)

The following pictures are all shot using room lights and long shutter speeds, I used a mini tripod for stabilization, check the 100% crops in the first two pictures by clicking on them to see how much detail is available at 1:1 magnification.

Needle & Thread - Click to see a 100% crop (f/4.5 - 4 sec - ISO 100)

Pen - Click to see a 100% crop (f/4.5 - 5 sec - ISO 100)

Lock - Click to see a larger version (f/5.6 - 13 sec - ISO 100)

Carpet - Click to see a larger version (f/2.8 - 1.3 sec - ISO 100)

This last example shows you what can be done hand held in dim light, you have to use a high ISO.

Curtains - Click to see a larger version (f/2.8 - 1/50 sec - ISO 1600)

PORTRAIT & GENERAL SHOOTING

I told you that I bought this lens to replace my 50mm f/1.8 II, which is one of my most used lenses, it is a little long (85mm equivalent) for indoor use or for shooting groups but I use it a lot because of it's size and weight and that it is the perfect focal length for portraits. All the coming pictures are shot hand held using available light except the last one with the white seamless background.

Baby in Her Chair - Click to see a larger version (f/2.8 - 1/100 sec - ISO 1600)

Crayons - Click to see a larger version (f/2.8 - 1/250 sec - ISO 400)

Colored Slides - Click to see a larger version (f/4 - 1/2000 sec - ISO 400)

Indoors Portrait - Click to see a larger version (f/2.8 - 1/80 sec - ISO 200)

Outdoors Portrait - Click to see a larger version (f/2.8 - 1/1250 sec - ISO 100)

White Seamless Portrait - Click to see a larger version (f/6.3 - 1/160 sec - ISO 400)

As you can see, the sharpness wide open is just staggering, and by stopping down a little it becomes crazy sharp, this is my favorite go to lens when I'm shooting portraits or product shots.

I hope you have enjoyed the article, if you have any feedback please let me know.

RELATED POSTS:

Canon Lenses Chat - Part 1: Standard Zoom Lenses
Canon Lenses Chat - Part 2: Telephoto Zoom Lenses
Canon Lenses Chat - Part 3: Prime Lenses
Canon EF 35mm f/2 Review
Quick Review: Canon 85mm f/1.8
Canon EF Lenses Chat: Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM Review
Canon EF Lenses Chat: Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Review

Read More

Comment on mirrorless cameras

It seems to me that mirrorless cameras are here to stay. Canon and Nikon still haven't produced their own versions but I'm sure they will come up with their mirrorless cameras eventually. There are indeed persistent rumors of a Nikon mirrorless camera.
On that note I think it would be cool if Canon and Nikon made their mirrorless cameras compatible with existing lenses. That would leverage the strength of their existing lens lineups. Because mirrorless cameras have thinner bodies and the sensors are closer to the lens, compatibility would probably require an adaptor - would be nice if it preserved all functions such as autofocus, metering and vibration reduction.
Some may say that using traditional lenses on a mirrorless body would defeat the purpose of geting a mirrorless system (more compact size). I disagree - compatibility won't preclude the development of mirrorless lenses (presumably smaller and more compact). Owners with existing lenses though could use a mirrorless body (while keeping their existing camera) for more casual shooting or as a compact backup. With the ability to use regular lenses, mirrorless camera buyers also won't feel like they are taking a leap of faith on a system with potentially slower development of lenses.
Would be nice if they had electronic shutters too with unlimited sync speed.

Read More

Playing at Pacific Park

We went to Pacific Park at the Santa Monica Pier.  We got there mid-afternoon, and it was very sunny.   To manage the wide dynamic range, I figured I would need a little fill-in flash to lift the shadows.

Ideally I would like to use a very soft light source as fill, but bounce under these conditions (bright, with no obvious bouncing surfaces) would not be easy.  I decided to use the Propet handheld umbrella.  I used the SB-600 as my slave and the SB-800 on-camera as master flash (i.e., both as commander and as additional flash).

More after the jump.




Why an SB-800 as opposed to the popup flash?  At sync speed, I was shooting at ISO 200, f/10 or thereabouts.  I didn't think the popup would be powerful enough for those conditions (didn't try though).

I was approached by security when I used the handheld umbrella.  Commercial photography is prohibited.  I assured them I was only taking photos of our toddler.  The security guard went away.

I really like how the shots turned out:

This shot was from direct on-camera flash.  Not too bad.

A short while later, security showed up again.  I again explained that I wasn't a commercial photographer.  They acknowledged that I was taking personal photos but they said my handheld umbrella was "extra equipment" and that it's not allowed. For a moment, my wife thought she found a photography-free haven.  I didn't bother arguing and I put the umbrella away.  I continued to use the SB-600 for off-camera flash.

Have a great weekend!

Read More

Happy St. Patrick's Day!

I don't get tired of backlight. :) Shot at sync speed to minimize ambient.  SB-600 camera right triggered via D70 popup flash as commander.

Read More

Stella and Sophia

20110313-D300-_DSC0906.jpg a photo by mic_ty on Flickr.

Took this shot during one of those moments when we didn't look tired. :) Lighting was primarily from bounced flash with my hand as a flag, with the flash aimed to a wall on camera left. Postprocessed with Lightroom 3.

Nikon D300 + Tamron 17-50 VC + Nikon SB-800

Read More

"Now what?" Options for a Hybrid Digital/Film Workflow

Nikon N90, Kodak Ultramax 400, scanned with Noritsu at Costco

 

Many of today's amateur photographers started out learning photography on a digital camera (like myself) and never got exposed as it were to film photography.  This post is part of a series where digital-only photographers such as myself can learn what's it like to shoot with film.  It's not a tutorial per se but more of an introduction.  (If you've shot with film, this will all seem incredibly basic but please chime in to share your knowledge in the comments.)

In a previous post, I discussed the shooting process: http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.com/2011/01/trying-out-film.html .  In this post, we'll talk about what happens afterward, and what you can expect in terms of output.

DEVELOPING

OK, so we just finished rewinding the film.  The film is now completely in the cartridge, sealed from light, ready to be developed.  In that form, the film is not yet stable and can be damaged or altered by X-rays or excessive heat for example.  Developing film is the chemical process for making the film somewhat permanent and no longer light-sensitive (I say "somewhat" permanent because colors can still fade over time with older films).

There are different development processes for different kinds of film.  The most common process for color negative film is C41.  For color reversal (slide) film, it's E6.  If you're having film developed at a lab, it's safe to assume they can do C41.  But for E6, you should check - many I checked with don't process E6.

It's certainly possible to develop film yourself and many film photographers do so, but it's by no means necessary.  Not counting intangibles such as greater sense of satisfaction or accomplishment, the practical benefit of developing film yourself is saving money, and also being able to control pull and push processing yourself, which means effectively decreasing or increasing (respectively) the film's sensitivity.  For example, ISO 200 film can be pulled to 100 or pushed to 400.

The disadvantage of developing film yourself is the time and hassle involved.  The chemicals are also not exactly great for your health: see http://photo.net/black-and-white-photo-film-processing-forum/00UIWu .  In my case, I have two young kids.  I don't want to do anything that would possibly harm them in an accident, no matter how remote that possibility, so I didn't even consider learning to develop film myself.  For me, it's just not worth the risk.  Besides, a lab can also be instructed to push or pull process.

PRINTING and SCANNING

After the film is developed, you can have it printed and/or scanned. 

The simplest option is to have a lab create prints for you.  However, this comes at a cost.  I'm not talking about the monetary cost of printing, but the cost in terms of losing control over the end result.  With traditional film photography, printing is an important part of the creative process.  During printing, the photographer can modify contrast, use dodging and burning to lighten or darken selective parts of the image, or add effects such as vignetting.

In my case, I didn't want to spend the time required for printing.  Fortunately, there's a digital alternative to chemical printing, which is to scan the film.  Purists scoff at this option.  One of their arguments is that if the film is merely being scanned, then the advantages that film has would be erased, and the photographer would be better off using a digital camera instead.

I'm not an expert in film photography, but I compared digital photos with scanned film photos and the results were quite different.  Qualitatively, the film photos (even merely scanned ones) had a certain richness and tonality that made them look more like cinema while the digital photos looked more like video.  The other difference was the dynamic range (even of scanned film) but I'm getting a little ahead of myself.

I had known that negative film has a wide dynamic range, and can preserve highlights very well, but I initially thought that such dynamic range would not be captured in scanning, unless perhaps through expensive drum scanning or through multiple scans that are recombined with HDR techniques.  Fortunately it appears that most of negative film's dynamic range can be captured in a scan, at least by the scanner at my local Costco (Noritsu QSS-3111).  See some comparisons here.

Scanning at my local Costco costs $2.99 for a roll of film (up to 40 frames).  It has cost, speed (1 hour) and dynamic range going for it.  On the other hand, the resolution appears limited.  Nominally, I got files with a resolution of 3087x2048 pixels (similar to a 6-megapixel camera).  However, when I zoom in the image, the actual resolution appears to be only about half of that.  Fortunately, I was able to get a decent 12x18 print but I'm not 100% sure if it's because they printed the 12x18 image from the negative or from the scanned file.

Note: At least one photographer has also been able to get 26-megapixel scans from Costco.  I tried to do that twice but all I got were the aforementioned 6-mp (3mp?) files.

Besides Costco, there are plenty of other options for scanning film but I haven't tried them yet.  Ken Rockwell loves Northcoast Photo Services in San Diego.  There's also a company called ScanCafe that scans at 10.5-megapixels (for slides or negatives) with 24-bit color (8-bits per RGB channel), but takes a while because they send the film to India for scanning.  There are many other options if you look around.

If you have a 5-star shot and you want the absolute best scan for it, the gold standard for scanning is a drum scan.  They aren't cheap at $20+ or more per frame of 35mm negative film.  That's not very surprising considering that a drum scanner costs up to $65,000 or even $300,000.  But you get what you pay for because the scanned file can be 140 megabytes with 48-bit color (16-bits per RGB channel) or more!

There are also DIY scanning options with scanners available for every budget.  But from what I've read, getting a good scan is an acquired skill.  I just don't have the time to learn that right now (besides the actual time it takes to scan the film).

POST-PROCESSING

After your film is scanned, the files can be adjusted with post-processing software.  These aren't raw files, so they don't have the same latitude for white balance adjustment for example, but you can use many of the darkroom techniques that were traditionally applied in the darkroom, such as dodging and burning, in addition to applying digital effects that are impossible or difficult to replicate in the darkroom (I'm pretty sure content-aware fill would be pretty difficult even for Ansel Adams =) ). 

Here's an example of a scanned film shot edited in Lightroom 3:

My flash was as eager as the subject on this shot

Attempting damage control

In this shot, my flash didn't function correctly and blasted the subject at almost full power.  Normally one would expect the subject to be overexposed, with no hope of recovery.  However, the highlights were preserved in both the film and in the scan, and no details were lost.

Read More

Neil vN Tests Nikon's Boosted 1/320 Sync Speed

One of the cool things about the Nikon D300, D300S, D700 and D7000 is that they can boost the flash sync speed above their normal sync speed of 1/250 to a third of a stop higher to 1/320.  The manual (at least on my D300) cautions that using this 1/320 sync speed will cause a reduction in the effective flash output but it is still more efficient than high speed sync (which has a 2-stop penalty).  It was always a mystery to me as to how the boosted sync speed works, and what the power loss was.

 

Neil van Niekerk just posted an article that tests the 1/320 sync speed and compares the result with 1/320 high speed sync, all using manual flash at full power:

http://neilvn.com/tangents/2011/03/13/auto-fp-flash-setting-nikon-d300s-d700/

 

I'm amazed that the reduction in effective flash output with the boosted 1/320 sync speed is not as significant as I thought.  It's certainly far more efficient than high speed sync.

 

Neil does note the slight darkening along the edge of the frame and for that reason would prefer not to use 1/320 sync.  In my case, I usually use high sync speeds in bright ambient conditions, and the darkened area would normally be illuminated by ambient light anyway.  So for my purposes, I would definitely turn on the 1/320 boost option.

 

On a related note, David Hobby found out that the D7000 can fooled into syncing at 1/400 (up to 1/4 manual power) and 1/500 with some darkening of the frame: http://strobist.blogspot.com/2011/03/nikons-d7000-sync-dial-goes-to-eleven.html  (His rationale for going all the way to 1/500 despite darkening is the same rationale I have for turning on the boost option.)  I'll test out the 1/400 sync speed on the D300 as well -- it may just work.

Read More

Tip: Using a Zoom Lens as a Compositional Aid

I am quite busy this week and behind the schedule for my next article, so until then, here's an extremely useful tip for everyone that I found a while ago on Digital Photography School. I hope you enjoy this article as much as I did.

NOTE: The illustration shown above is taken from Canon's EF Lens Work III, they have very useful material for everyone regardless of the camera/lens brand. I would really suggest you read it, and here is a direct link to the PDF with the illustration shown above.

Read More

Latitude of Bounce Flash as Fill

We had a going-away party for one of our coworkers at a restaurant/bar with a wharf warehouse theme.  Weathered lumber was all over the place, along with barrels, crates and fishing nets.  It's how I imagine it would feel like being in an 18th century galleon.

Taking photos at this location was quite a challenge.  First, with dark wood everywhere and very high ceilings, there was no obvious place from which to bounce a flash.  Second, the dynamic range was quite high.  Most of the bar was kind of dark.  On the other hand, near the windows and under the lights, it was pretty bright.  Third, compounding the dynamic range issue, our group was having the party immediately beside the windows.  When balancing flash and ambient, having a dimly-lit subject against a bright background gives you a number of options.  In this case, when the subject is significantly brighter than the background, balancing flash and ambient is a little tricky.  Did I mention this place was dark?

We actually had a party at this same location last year.  At that time, I first tried using direct on-camera flash as fill and I didn't like how it looked.

Although the flash helped to reduce the dynamic range and illuminated the subjects while allowing the outside scenery to be visible, it did not look right (mainly because the light was coming from a direction that is different from where we would expect it to come from).  I gave up the flash and just went with ambient light only.

It certainly looked more natural, but the shadows were very dark, giving the images a very contrasty kind of look.  Nothing wrong with that per se, but it's not the kind of photo with mass appeal shall we say.

My primary objective this time was to improve from last year's shots by adding fill light, in a way that would complement the image.  I decided I would try bounce flash anyway, notwithstanding the less-than-ideal bouncing conditions.

It worked reasonably well.  I learned that conditions that would be impossible or difficult to use for bounce flash when using bounce as key can be feasible when using bounce flash as fill:

1. Power.  As a fill light, I'm using flash at -2 FEC or thereabouts.  Thus, using even a low ISO is possible (when bounce flash usually requires a higher ISO).  In these shots, I was using ISO 400.  That would be asking a lot from the flash in this kind of location if flash were the key light.  As the fill light though, I'm asking for only around 1/4th the amount of power I would otherwise require.  The power needed would be akin to shooting at ISO 1600 at 0 FEC, which is pretty realistic.

Bouncing from high ceilings at ISO 400

2. Bounce Direction.  As a key light, the direction that we're bouncing from is critical to the resulting image because it will determine the appearance of the shadows (and highlights).  When using bounce flash as fill, the amount of light the flash is contributing to the image is much dimmer, therefore the shadows that bounce flash produces are less noticeable (that's the whole point of fill light - you don't want fill light to cast its own shadows).  Bounce directions that I would normally avoid as unflattering may be usable when I'm using bounce flash as fill.

Bouncing straight up is usually not ideal but when it's only fill light, it looks ok.

3. Color.  Usually, I'm cautious about bouncing from non-neutral surfaces, like the dark wood at this location.  Once again, when bounce is only acting as fill, the color cast is less objectionable.

This is going to help me recognize bounce flash possibilities in seemingly impossible bounce conditions.

Read More