Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Tupac on June 02, 2011, 08:44:52 PM
-
Tips, suggestions, ideas, anything photography related share here
(http://i821.photobucket.com/albums/zz138/dcwdavid/010.jpg)
I think I got after this picture to much with the color enhance
(http://i821.photobucket.com/albums/zz138/dcwdavid/004.jpg)
I just used a white balance on this one, it was a little light
-
You might benefit from a polarizing filter. It would help prevent the colors looking washed out. What camera are you using?
-
You might benefit from a polarizing filter. It would help prevent the colors looking washed out. What camera are you using?
Powershot SX30
-
Powershot SX30
That's a good camera for a point and shoot.
Get one of these...
http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=will+the+sx30is+accept+a+filter&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=13729787068493438236&sa=X&ei=Cj_oTY7bCMjb0QHXx_W8AQ&ved=0CFIQ8wIwAA#
And one of these to put on it...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/606823-REG/Canon_2189B001_2189B001_67mm_Circular_Polarizing.html
Or if you don't want to spend much, try this kit...
http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Digital-UV-CPL-FLD-MicroFiber-Cleaning/dp/accessories/B004PJJU30
-
That's a good camera for a point and shoot.
Get one of these...
http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=will+the+sx30is+accept+a+filter&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=13729787068493438236&sa=X&ei=Cj_oTY7bCMjb0QHXx_W8AQ&ved=0CFIQ8wIwAA#
And one of these to put on it...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/606823-REG/Canon_2189B001_2189B001_67mm_Circular_Polarizing.html
Or if you don't want to spend much, try this kit...
http://www.amazon.com/Essential-Digital-UV-CPL-FLD-MicroFiber-Cleaning/dp/accessories/B004PJJU30
Thanks a bunch! Just ordered the one off of Amazon, cant justify spending another $200 on camera stuff for the other
-
Thanks a bunch! Just ordered the one off of Amazon, cant justify spending another $200 on camera stuff for the other
I don't blame you. Heck, I'm a professional photographer and I don't spend that much on filters... But I don't normally use them. I do think the circular polarizer will help you out though. Some other things that might be helpful...
Don't shoot on the automatic setting if you have a choice. Look and see if your camera has a TV (not television, it stands for Shutter Priority). TV allows you to tell the camera what shutter speed to use, the camera will select an appropriate f stop (a measurement of the size of the hole that lets light into the imaging sensor). You'll have to experiment a bit, but I would suspect that somewhere in the 1/250th - 1/500th of a second should be plenty fast for the type of shots you are taking.
Also, if your camera has an ISO setting, lower is better usually. So, an ISO of 400 or less would be good if you are shooting in daylight. Higher ISO settings should be reserved mostly for lower light situations.
I've never done any aerial photography, so I'll think about it for a little while and see if I can come up with any other things you can try to get a better image.
-
I had my ISO set up a little high, and I reset my shutter priority to 1/500th thanks again for the tips!
-
I had my ISO set up a little high, and I reset my shutter priority to 1/500th thanks again for the tips!
Just keep an eye on the Aperture that the camera is selecting while in TV mode. For what you are doing, the higher the f stop the better for a deeper depth of field. It shouldn't be a problem in bright daylight, in fact you may be able to go even faster on the shutter (which would be a good thing in this case). So, if you see that the Aperture (f stop) is pegging around 18-22 or so, you can crank the shutter faster.
One trick is, set the camera to AV (Aperture priority) and set the aperture to 22 and take a picture, note what shutter speed the camera picks. As long as the shutter speed you are getting is above the 1/250th mark you should then switch to to TV mode and set your shutter one notch slower then what the camera was picking on AV mode. This should get you best possible depth of field and as long as your shutter is still around 1/250th or faster you'll be golden.
You could just use AV mode all of the time, but setting to TV mode is a habit that I picked up when I was shooting sports all of the time. Better to control the shutter and be on focus, then to control aperture and risk the shutter being too slow and producing motion blur.
Hope that all makes sense. Let me know if it isn't clear. I usually have a chalkboard in the front of a classroom when I am explaining this stuff to people.
-
I picked up a Nikon P500 as my back up. It's a little more advanced for just a point & shoot. I actually prefer my old D80, but the D7000 looks real sweet.
A great website for camera reviews is www.dpreview.com You can compare all of the new cameras out on the market if you're looking to upgrade. It also has a forum site for tips and advise.
-
This is what I carry if I am covering something like a High School football game for the local paper, or just about any news story.
(http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w220/Davis_Andrews/IMG_6944.jpg)
From top to bottom, sort of...
300mm f2.8IS
Canon EOS-1D with 70-200mm f2.8IS
Canon EOS-5D with 28-70mm f2.8
Manfrotto carbon fiber monopod
and the black pack with the cord is an auxillery battery pack
Not shown is the flash that I carry and my 1.4x and 2x tele-extenders
-
I cover sports with this.........
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/01/26/article-1127863-032F7AC7000005DC-124_634x506.jpg)
-
I cover sports with this.........
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/01/26/article-1127863-032F7AC7000005DC-124_634x506.jpg)
I had an Etch a Sketch when I was a kid... I have come to the conclusion that the guys who can use them to create pictures like that have solod their souls to the devil in exchange for their dark etch a sketch powers.
-
The few aerial shots I've taken are always lacking in contrast. I imagine that's due to shooting through the window plus the amount of atmosphere between target and I. Dave mentioned the polarizing filter—I bought one the other day but haven't had a chance to use yet from the skies. I've got a Nikon D90.
Yuck
(http://i547.photobucket.com/albums/hh473/cactuskooler/DSC_0054.jpg)
Fortunately I'm better at Photoshop than I am at photo snapping, sort of.
(http://i547.photobucket.com/albums/hh473/cactuskooler/DSC_0054_1.jpg)
-
Here is a before and after of another picture I took. The problem you have cactus looks very similar to the one I'm having.
(http://i821.photobucket.com/albums/zz138/dcwdavid/019.jpg)
(http://i821.photobucket.com/albums/zz138/dcwdavid/019-1.jpg)
-
The biggest issue with getting low contrast images like that is simply the time of day. The best light for photos is an for an hour after sunrise and for an hour before sunset. Like Dave mentioned a polarizer will help a lot as well, and you need a circular one or it could mess with your autofocus.
Also you may running into a dynamic range limitation in those shots, digital sensors cannot match the range of the human eye, so you end up with the sky overexposed (blown out) or else the ground underexposed. Solution for that is either a graduated neutral density filter to tone down the bright sky, or merging multiple exposures (HDR) which is impossible to do properly from a moving airplane. Also I bet that Photoshop or Lightroom could pull a lot of detail out of that bright sky still. I've taken photos that I thought where completely blown out, but have still been able to pull back the exposure in Lightroom and get lots of detail. I'm pretty sure I could make a huge improvement in those photos just using a graduated exposure filter in LR, as well as playing with the tone curve.
But really the best thing you can do if you want nice aerial pictures is to get airborne just before dawn and just wait for the golden light to come. Or you could also go up in the evenings if your night time current and don't mind landing after dark. :old:
-
Ive noticed that the UV/Haze filters dont seem to work as well on digi as they did with film, not sure why :headscratch: polariser works great in some conditions, but you need to adjust it for each shot - its not a fit and forget filter.
for those aerial shots you should be shooting in RAW if at all possible (slightly underexposed) so you can squeeze every last bit of contrast out the image. if it was B&W film I'd say use an orange filter to deepen the sky's blue and provide contrast with clouds, but I really dont know how effective they are on digi (filters seem to effect film/CCDs in different ways.)
edit: this is what I use, the filter adapter/barrel stays on permanently and makes it much easier to hold :aok
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3076/2891682726_760cd1c572_o.jpg)
-
Ive noticed that the UV/Haze filters dont seem to work as well on digi as they did with film, not sure why
I never thought they did much on film either, only reason I've ever used a UV filter is protection.
for those aerial shots you should be shooting in RAW if at all possible
I'm one that preaches you should ALWAYS shoot in RAW. With RAW converters like Lightroom and Adobe Camera RAW, it's not really that much more work to shoot in RAW then JPEG, and YOU get to decide how the image should look, not the processor in your camera.
(slightly underexposed) so you can squeeze every last bit of contrast out the image.
I disagree. What you say is **kinda** true with film (not really though, the best thing with film is to use a ND filter) but not digital. With digital you should always try to "expose to the right", because the sensor gets the best signal/noise ratio that way. When you intentionally underexpose you're just introducing unnecessary noise. You can always just pull back the exposure or brightness a bit in post if you need too. Here's a technical explanation of why, Expose (to the) Right (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml) it's an old article, and ETTR made a bigger difference on those early sensors, but it still holds true to a degree even today.
I almost always have at least +.3 of exposure compensation dialed in. If I get a set that is to bright I just adjust one in LR and sync the rest, takes all of 8 seconds. For best contrast with digital I just slide the "black" slider in LR up a bit, then play with the tone curve using the drag tool. Remember shooting RAW is like cooking a meal, and JPEG is like ordering delivery. The RAW file gives you all the ingredients for a great image, but you still need to "cook" it with some post processing. Like I said earlier, it's not hard at all with modern software now.
But, I still stand by my early advice... The BEST thing you can do to make the BIGGEST improvement in your photos is to shoot at the right time of day. You will never get fantastic photos shooting under the harsh mid-day sun.
-
I shoot for the best possible exposure all the time. I don't believe in shooting over or under intentionally.
I do a lot (crapload) of little league sports action. I'll come away from the ball fields after an evening of games with literally thousands of images. Once I'm back to the office, I turn them so their orientation is correct and then remove about 1/2 of the images simply because the shots are repetitive, or for one reason or another I don't believe the image will sell. Then I upload to my web site and sell them.
If I had to post produce each image, I would have to price myself completely out of the market or put a bullet in my head to make it all stop.
I say, learn your camera. Pay attention to the lighting. Do less after the fact. Who do you think you are? Ansel Adams? :bolt:
Just my own personal rant about photographers who rely on tinkering after the fact instead of taking the image they want when they open the shutter.
Caveat: There are occaisions when tinkering in post is necessary. I'm just saying, try to learn to need it as little as humanly possible and you will be a better photographer.
-
I shoot for the best possible exposure all the time. I don't believe in shooting over or under intentionally.
I do a lot (crapload) of little league sports action. I'll come away from the ball fields after an evening of games with literally thousands of images. Once I'm back to the office, I turn them so their orientation is correct and then remove about 1/2 of the images simply because the shots are repetitive, or for one reason or another I don't believe the image will sell. Then I upload to my web site and sell them.
If I had to post produce each image, I would have to price myself completely out of the market or put a bullet in my head to make it all stop.
I say, learn your camera. Pay attention to the lighting. Do less after the fact. Who do you think you are? Ansel Adams? :bolt:
Just my own personal rant about photographers who rely on tinkering after the fact instead of taking the image they want when they open the shutter.
Caveat: There are occaisions when tinkering in post is necessary. I'm just saying, try to learn to need it as little as humanly possible and you will be a better photographer.
Im not a photographer but I know who Ansel Adams is....I have used his work in some tatts Ive done.
-
Im not a photographer but I know who Ansel Adams is....I have used his work in some tatts Ive done.
In the photography world, Ansel Adams was famous for his darkroom work more then his photography. He would take a basically generic photograph and dodge and burn like crazy to make his amazing pictures. He was a photoshop guy before there were computers, basically.
-
I shoot for the best possible exposure all the time. I don't believe in shooting over or under intentionally.
I do a lot (crapload) of little league sports action. I'll come away from the ball fields after an evening of games with literally thousands of images. Once I'm back to the office, I turn them so their orientation is correct and then remove about 1/2 of the images simply because the shots are repetitive, or for one reason or another I don't believe the image will sell. Then I upload to my web site and sell them.
If I had to post produce each image, I would have to price myself completely out of the market or put a bullet in my head to make it all stop.
I say, learn your camera. Pay attention to the lighting. Do less after the fact. Who do you think you are? Ansel Adams? :bolt:
Just my own personal rant about photographers who rely on tinkering after the fact instead of taking the image they want when they open the shutter.
Caveat: There are occaisions when tinkering in post is necessary. I'm just saying, try to learn to need it as little as humanly possible and you will be a better photographer.
You misunderstand me, I'm not talking about overexposing. The idea is just to keep most of the peaks towards the rights on the histogram (not off it), as the farther left they are the more noise you get. This is critical for some situations I shoot, like at an indoor rodeo. I can't get close enough to use a flashgun, (the dust in the air just makes haze) and they won't let me set up a remote light in the arena. So I end up shooting at ISO 1600, and if I can keep the histogram peaks more to the right side, I end up with much less noise in the images.
Like you say learn your camera, the +.3 or +.5 exposure compensation gets the exposure usually right on my cameras center-weighted meter. If I'm using spot meter, it's usually dead on without any compensation.
As for post processing, I try to do as little as possible as well. It depends on the situation though, for hobby photography (what the OP is talking about, and is landscapes and wildlife for me) I will spend a bit more time in post striving for perfection just cause I can.
However I do sports (for $$) as well, and I do very little post with them like you mentioned. I still shoot RAW though, I scan through them in LR, throw out the rejects, then usually use a sharpening preset, contrast preset, and a color preset (depends on the lens) (and maybe a noise filter depending on the ISO) on the whole lot. I shoot a youth rodeo last weekend, came back with about 500 pictures, parred that down to nearer 400, and it took me all of 20 minutes to process them, then I just click export and walk away while LR makes the JPEGs, and uploads them to my site.
I also do the occasional wedding, or family event, and for those I DO take more time in post, I don't neccesarily change much, I just want to make sure everyone is as good as it can be . I'm very much a perfectionist when it comes to family pictures that people pay me good money for, and will be hanging on their wall for years to come.
-
Also this:
I turn them so their orientation is correct .
I'm shocked :huh to learn that your Canon doesn't record the image orientation when you release the shutter. That's a feature found on $100 p&s cameras, how come Canon doesn't have it on their flagship model?!? :huh
-
Also this:
I'm shocked :huh to learn that your Canon doesn't record the image orientation when you release the shutter. That's a feature found on $100 p&s cameras, how come Canon doesn't have it on their flagship model?!? :huh
You would think... But on my EOS-1D Mark III, when I dump the card to my computer, all of my vertical shots need a turn 90 degrees counter clockwise. It's still the industry standard camera for professional sports photography though. Ya I said it all you Nikon weenies! Suck it! :rofl
-
You misunderstand me, I'm not talking about overexposing. The idea is just to keep most of the peaks towards the rights on the histogram (not off it), as the farther left they are the more noise you get. This is critical for some situations I shoot, like at an indoor rodeo. I can't get close enough to use a flashgun, (the dust in the air just makes haze) and they won't let me set up a remote light in the arena. So I end up shooting at ISO 1600, and if I can keep the histogram peaks more to the right side, I end up with much less noise in the images.
Like you say learn your camera, the +.3 or +.5 exposure compensation gets the exposure usually right on my cameras center-weighted meter. If I'm using spot meter, it's usually dead on without any compensation.
As for post processing, I try to do as little as possible as well. It depends on the situation though, for hobby photography (what the OP is talking about, and is landscapes and wildlife for me) I will spend a bit more time in post striving for perfection just cause I can.
However I do sports (for $$) as well, and I do very little post with them like you mentioned. I still shoot RAW though, I scan through them in LR, throw out the rejects, then usually use a sharpening preset, contrast preset, and a color preset (depends on the lens) (and maybe a noise filter depending on the ISO) on the whole lot. I shoot a youth rodeo last weekend, came back with about 500 pictures, parred that down to nearer 400, and it took me all of 20 minutes to process them, then I just click export and walk away while LR makes the JPEGs, and uploads them to my site.
I also do the occasional wedding, or family event, and for those I DO take more time in post, I don't neccesarily change much, I just want to make sure everyone is as good as it can be . I'm very much a perfectionist when it comes to family pictures that people pay me good money for, and will be hanging on their wall for years to come.
Yup, we're pretty much on the same page. Do you post your sports images up to a web site for sale? If not, send me a PM. I can point you toward the best hosting/slash processing set up in the industry. I sell prints off of my web site, but I never actually touch a customer order. Really good stuff, you'd love it.
-
Yup, we're pretty much on the same page. Do you post your sports images up to a web site for sale? If not, send me a PM. I can point you toward the best hosting/slash processing set up in the industry. I sell prints off of my web site, but I never actually touch a customer order. Really good stuff, you'd love it.
Yea, I have a Smugmug Pro account, using Bay Photo for prints. I'm pleased overall with Smugmug, just have a couple small complaints about their interface, sometimes it takes me too long to remember how to do stuff like move galleries around and save pricing setups. But that is probably my own computer illiteracy coming out.
-
Yea, I have a Smugmug Pro account, using Bay Photo for prints. I'm pleased overall with Smugmug, just have a couple small complaints about their interface, sometimes it takes me too long to remember how to do stuff like move galleries around and save pricing setups. But that is probably my own computer illiteracy coming out.
Take a look at WD Web, their software is really well done. PM me if you're interested and I'll give you more info. I have used it for major events where I am uploading and selling 30k images after a weekend event. I have yet to find anything that even comes close to it. On the flip side, why change if you like what you currently have...
-
Gruene Hall....
The heart and soul of the Texas music scene
ahhhhh the memories, vague and foggy as they are.
Stab
-
In the photography world, Ansel Adams was famous for his darkroom work more then his photography. He would take a basically generic photograph and dodge and burn like crazy to make his amazing pictures. He was a photoshop guy before there were computers, basically.
no doubt didn't know that, I got a book of his trees and that's were I have used his work from.
-
Canon Digital Rebel XSI
(All processed in Photoshop)
Milky Way's Edge (Took this one last night) Single 5 Min. 30 Sec exposure ISO1600
(http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x311/archywood/Milkyway_1.jpg)
Cousin Cooper and a diry face
(http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x311/archywood/Kooper.jpg)
Da Moon
(http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x311/archywood/moonc.jpg)
M3
(http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x311/archywood/M3c.jpg)
Ring Nebula
(http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x311/archywood/ring_nebc.jpg)
-
How did you get that moon shot? :O You must have had a lens as long as your arm!
-Penguin
-
Canon Digital Rebel XSI
(All processed in Photoshop)
Milky Way's Edge (Took this one last night) Single 5 Min. 30 Sec exposure ISO1600
(http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x311/archywood/Milkyway_1.jpg)
Cousin Cooper and a diry face
(http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x311/archywood/Kooper.jpg)
Da Moon
(http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x311/archywood/moonc.jpg)
M3
(http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x311/archywood/M3c.jpg)
Ring Nebula
(http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x311/archywood/ring_nebc.jpg)
wow dood friggin awesome :aok
-
Thanks guys :cool:
How did you get that moon shot? :O You must have had a lens as long as your arm!
-Penguin
Yep, my 10" telescope :D
-
Thanks guys :cool:
Yep, my 10" telescope :D
Would you mind if I used that moon shot as my computer wall paper?
-
Would you mind if I used that moon shot as my computer wall paper?
Sure, go right ahead :cheers:
-
Sure, go right ahead :cheers:
Thanks mate :cheers:
-
Canon T2i here, I usually just set it on Av and leave it there unless conditions call for something truly unique. Wish I had the cash for an L lens, but that ain't gonna happen. Been thinking about building my barndoor so I can get superior night shots.
-
Canon Digital Rebel XSI
(All processed in Photoshop)
Nice pics!
-
I use a Canon D40 with a 35-135mm macro lens, it helps when I'm nice and close, but it gives me a great deal of grief when I'm trying to shoot further. Do you guys have any ideas on how to deal with it?
-Penguin
-
Cannon SX20IS which I use when backseat drivin as I usually have one hand to operate it with.
But the haze is the number one killer of my photos, here in Germany.
(http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff442/Vuduvince/003.jpg)
(http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff442/Vuduvince/071.jpg)
(http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff442/Vuduvince/078.jpg)
(http://i1236.photobucket.com/albums/ff442/Vuduvince/027.jpg)
-
I use a Canon D40 with a 35-135mm macro lens, it helps when I'm nice and close, but it gives me a great deal of grief when I'm trying to shoot further. Do you guys have any ideas on how to deal with it?
-Penguin
I don't understand your question, what exactly do you meant by "shoot further"?
Are you saying you get poor image quality using the lens at 135?
If that's the case my first guess would be that you are running into blur from camera shake. As a lens magnifies the scene it sees, it also magnifies any camera shake, which causes motion blur of the image. The old rule of thumb is that your shutter speed should never be lower then the reciprocal of your focal length when shooting handheld. In your situation this means when your shooting at 135mm, you should have a shutter speed of at least 1/135s to avoid blur from camera shake (I bet your camera can't do 1/135s though, so go the next step higher, probably 1/160s, or 1/200s.). If you're shooting moving objects, or panning with a moving object, you'll need an even faster shutter speed in order to "freeze" the action. If you must shoot slower then the focal length, then you should be using a sturdy tripod and remote release.
If your shooting outside in the daytime, getting a fast enough shutter speed should not be a problem. In that situation I usually shoot in aperture priority, and let the shutter speed float. If it's a little darker and the SS starts to drop too low, I'll bump up the ISO a step. I also almost always use a monopod with lenses 200mm and longer, it helps a lot in reducing camera shake.
The other possibility is that you just have a crappy lens. Good lenses (especially good zooms) are very expensive, and the "kit" lenses that come with beginner SLRs, are usually the bottom of the barrel when it comes to optics, build, and quality control. It's very possible that you just have a lens that only "works" at the wide end of it's zoom range.
-
By shoot further, I mean getting a nice, long telephoto shot across the auditorium. It's not that it's blurry, it's that my exposure keeps jumping around- I can't get a proper exposure.
One other thing, how do I use the C1, C2, and C3 settings? I've tried to, but it just jumps back to what I was using on M.
-Penguin
-
By shoot further, I mean getting a nice, long telephoto shot across the auditorium. It's not that it's blurry, it's that my exposure keeps jumping around- I can't get a proper exposure.
In an auditorium you probably have mostly dark foreground, then super bright stage lights and spotlights illuminating the subject, then a dark background, this difference is tricking your cameras meter. Here's what you do.
Use the spot meter, meter off of something that matches your subject, like the back of your hand if your shooting people (obviously if you're in the dark this won't work, and you may have to sneak closer to the stage to take a meter reading off the actual subject, it depends a lot on how small your cameras spot meter circle is, the smaller the better ). Then shoot in manual mode with that setting, ignoring what your meter tells you. From there you can use your histogram/image review screen to tweak the exposure if needed.
EDIT: just thinking, if it's a play or something where they are using different stage lights for mood, then your kinda screwed using manual since the lighting is constantly changing. In that situation the best you can do is shoot aperture priority (big aperture), with spot meter, and get as close as you can.
One other thing, how do I use the C1, C2, and C3 settings? I've tried to, but it just jumps back to what I was using on M.
-Penguin
I'm guessing "C" is for "custom" as in custom settings. Sorry I have no idea how to set them up on your camera, (not a Canon guy) except to say read the manual. On my bodies it is M1, M2 and M3 ( m for "memory") instead, and I set them by turning the dial to them, selecting the settings I want, and selecting "memory set" from the menu. Honestly I don't use then very often though. I used to use them to flip settings easily when swapping lenses at a wedding or event. But now I just carry 2 bodies instead.
-
Here are some photos I shot while in flight aboard B-17G Liberty Belle. I was using an Olympus E-510, definitely not a top of the line rig.
(http://i1195.photobucket.com/albums/aa391/SKColt/LibertyBellecockpitinflightoverWichitaMay2007.jpg)
(http://i1195.photobucket.com/albums/aa391/SKColt/LibertyBelleenginesMay2007.jpg)
(http://i1195.photobucket.com/albums/aa391/SKColt/Viewfromaboveradioroom5-14-07A.jpg)
(http://i1195.photobucket.com/albums/aa391/SKColt/RightwaistLibertyBelle5-14-2007.jpg)
-
In an auditorium you probably have mostly dark foreground, then super bright stage lights and spotlights illuminating the subject, then a dark background, this difference is tricking your cameras meter. Here's what you do.
Use the spot meter, meter off of something that matches your subject, like the back of your hand if your shooting people (obviously if you're in the dark this won't work, and you may have to sneak closer to the stage to take a meter reading off the actual subject, it depends a lot on how small your cameras spot meter circle is, the smaller the better ). Then shoot in manual mode with that setting, ignoring what your meter tells you. From there you can use your histogram/image review screen to tweak the exposure if needed.
EDIT: just thinking, if it's a play or something where they are using different stage lights for mood, then your kinda screwed using manual since the lighting is constantly changing. In that situation the best you can do is shoot aperture priority (big aperture), with spot meter, and get as close as you can.
I'm guessing "C" is for "custom" as in custom settings. Sorry I have no idea how to set them up on your camera, (not a Canon guy) except to say read the manual. On my bodies it is M1, M2 and M3 ( m for "memory") instead, and I set them by turning the dial to them, selecting the settings I want, and selecting "memory set" from the menu. Honestly I don't use then very often though. I used to use them to flip settings easily when swapping lenses at a wedding or event. But now I just carry 2 bodies instead.
What he said, plus... When spot metering, set the meter point to the face of your subject if possible. Ideally, you want the most correct exposure for your subjects face. This is especially useful at a wedding for example where the bride is in white and the groom is wearing black. Metering off of either persons clothing will often cause the exposure on the faces to be out of whack.
Also, shooting something on a stage, like a play or show or whatever, can be really challenging. Every stage I have ever worked always has "hot" and "cold" spots. The stage lights are never even across the entire stage or from front to back. Sometimes, when dealing with particularly crappy stage lighting, I will set the camera to bracket the exposure by as much as a full stop over and under and take pictures in triples.
As for the custom pre-sets. I am a Canon guy. Have been for more then 20 years. I have yet to use the custom pre-sets. If you want to, simply consult your manual. There is a section that explains how to set them up if you want to play with them.
-
I don't shoot weddings, I haven't had the chance (I'm only a kid). The lighting completely covers the arena (I shoot robotics competions), but the drivers stations on either side are dark. Getting the robots is not the problem. The problem is that I need to immediately switch between a very bright subject (the arena) and a very dark subject (everywhere else is unlit) very quickly, and still freeze the action in both conditions. I have around five seconds to switch settings, and anything longer than that will cost me some great shots.
How do I spot meter? I'm a bit confused on that issue.
-Penguin
-
I don't shoot weddings, I haven't had the chance (I'm only a kid). The lighting completely covers the arena (I shoot robotics competions), but the drivers stations on either side are dark. Getting the robots is not the problem. The problem is that I need to immediately switch between a very bright subject (the arena) and a very dark subject (everywhere else is unlit) very quickly, and still freeze the action in both conditions. I have around five seconds to switch settings, and anything longer than that will cost me some great shots.
How do I spot meter? I'm a bit confused on that issue.
-Penguin
Using the spot meter on AV or TV mode will help you with the switching between different lighting. Look for these symbols on the control screen...
(http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w220/Davis_Andrews/metering.jpg)
You should know though, no flash indoor photography without professional grade lenses (f2.8 or better) can be a lot like banging your head on the wall. You need to set your ISO to the fastest speed your camera is capable. I would then suggest setting to TV (shutter priority) with a shutter speed of 1/90th. If your pictures are dark, you probably can't effectively shoot in that location. If they aren't dark, then you have hope and can bump your shutter speed up one notch at a time until you get it fast enough to stop the action you are shooting. Next, get closer if you can. Your lens has a lower f stop at lower magnification. Meaning it will give you better low light images if you aren't using the zoom. Zooming raises your f stop, which means less light is getting to the imaging sensor per seconds. Darker pictures.
There is a good reason why we pros will spend $4000 on a 300mm f2.8 lens. Low light, no flash...
-
I don't shoot weddings, I haven't had the chance (I'm only a kid).
Don't do it, it's a miserable job. ;) Seriously, shooting weddings wouldn't be bad if it where only the bride and groom, that part I quite enjoy actually, they are always willing and easy to pose, plus happy people are always more photogenic, and who's more happy then the bride and groom. It's when you get to the group photos of the whole extended family that it sucks, and people have big families around here. After spending 10 minutes yelling and gesturing to get everyone in the right spot, and looking forward, there is always some aunt or mom or grandma that gets all upset because a toddler is crying, or little Billy or Suzy has there finger up their nose, or a frown during the group photo. Then they always come to me and say, "You can photoshop that out right?" to which I reply "Sure, I charge $100 an hour extra for photoshop manipulation" then they storm away angry with me.
If somebody approaches me, I will do a wedding, (just because I can make more on a wedding then anything else I do) but I don't advertise I do them, just word of mouth.
How do I spot meter? I'm a bit confused on that issue.
-Penguin
EDIT: Dave beat me to this explanation and his pictures make more sense them my words, only thing to add is that there should be a button somewhere to let you spot meter a subject, then hold down or push this button and it holds that metered exposure setting while you recompose and release the shutter. Of course the other option is to just set it manually.
Penguin-
If you are really interested in learning photography I highly recommend reading some of the articles and tutorials on this site: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com
Start with the articles listed under "Photo Essentials." I have no affiliation with them, don't know anything about them, I just stumbled on it a few years ago from another photography forum, and it is by far the best photography learning website I've found.
-
If somebody approaches me, I will do a wedding, (just because I can make more on a wedding then anything else I do)
I do advertise for weddings. Because they are the most $ per hour I can make legally with a camera, and repeat it 2-3 Saturdays each month. I have a friend who doesn't like shooting weddings, so he charges $5000 to shoot one. He has effectively priced himself out of most of the wedding market. But there are enough people who will pay that much for a good photographer that he does 4 or 5 a year at that price.
I have my price set so I can pretty easily book 20-30 weddings a year. If I did nothing else, I would make a modest living working about 2 days a month. But I do a lot of sports too.
(call AEL on mine for auto-exposure-lock, I don't recall what Canon calls it) that you can push and/or hold down when you spot meter, and it will hold that exposure setting while you recompose and release the shutter.
It's AEL on Canon also. It's the button easily reachable with your right thumb that has an * symbol.
-
Been working in Photoshop in between wasting time on the interwebz tonight. Here's one I took last summer but finally decided to do something with:
(http://www.kirksagers.com/Nature/Landscapes/Summer/i-kmcWbp5/1/XL/Porcupine-Pass-2-Edit-1-X2.jpg)
200° Panorama, it's actually 8 shots taken vertically with a 24mm prime stitched in CS4. I like it but there is so much detail (the full JPEG came out to 43mb in color and 30mb in B&W) no computer screen can do it justice, I'm thinking of ordering a 30 or 40" print of it.
EDIT: Color version
(http://www.kirksagers.com/Nature/Landscapes/Summer/i-pdkb74c/0/X2/Porcupine-Pass-2-Edit-2-1-X2.jpg)
-
Been working in Photoshop in between wasting time on the interwebz tonight. Here's one I took last summer but finally decided to do something with:
(http://www.kirksagers.com/Nature/Landscapes/Summer/i-kmcWbp5/1/XL/Porcupine-Pass-2-Edit-1-2X.jpg)
200° Panorama, it's actually 8 shots taken vertically with a 24mm prime stitched in CS4. I like it but there is so much detail (the full JPEG came out to 43mb in color and 30mb in B&W) no computer screen can do it justice, I'm thinking of ordering a 30 or 40" print of it.
Very nice