Canon Rebel XT/350D questions
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 8996 Registered: May-04 | . After thirteen years my 35mm Rebel has started to give me some problems. Nothing that can't be fixed (temporarily, at least) by a good cleaning. They are, however, problems which will probably return due to the age and wear on the camera. Rather than put the money into a repeated cleaning and to eliminate the constant cost of film/processing, I decided to go with the Rebel XT as my first digital camera. I've been a fan of Canon since the 1970's when they were the underdog to Nikon and have used their cameras and lenses for quite some time now. So the XT made sense to me. (Though my mid-length lens is showing it's age also. I should have bought the kit lens since it gets good reviews but opted for the body only to save a few bucks for now.) Now I have a few questions. Let's start with White Balance. How much should I trust the Auto WB? A few comments about the operation of the camera give the various balance programs decent marks for everything except Tungsten. That's not much of a problem for me since I seldom take snaps indoors. Reading on the internet, there seems to be an obvious difference in picture quality in many situations when the camera is allowed to set the balance automatically. I understand I can use the settings to create effects, but when should I just say the heck with it and let the camera set the WB? Ever? That seems awfully lazy when the more-or-less correct setting is just a menu away. Secondly, the Custom WB seems useful in many situations. (Though Canon's instructions for setting it are somewhat confusing.) I never worried about WB when shooting film since I generally bought a film meant for whatever conditions I expected and that was what I could use until the roll ran out. With the XT it seems like it might be a better idea to set the WB for the given situation when I'm not in an obvious choice for the presets (sunlight, shade, flourescent, etc.). In this day of instant gratification through the internet, I cannot believe there isn't a site which will allow me to download a DIY 18% grey card. Does anyone know of a site where I can print one out? I know grey cards aren't that expensive, but they aren't that exotic either when I consider my less than professional needs. Also, how about an opinion for shooting a grey card vs. a white card for this camera. Several forums had members who suggested simply using a piece of photo stock and letting a close to pure white be the scale the camera works from. OK, that's as cheap as I can get other than shooting the palm of my hand, which isn't always convenient. Any opinions for someone who isn't shooting for print or any type of sale, just personal use. 85% of what I shoot is outdoors and often in less than full sunlight. If you would like to see some of the information I've read on the XT so we're all on the same page, here's a few sites that seemed interesting. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos350d/ http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/digital_rebel_xt-review/index.shtml http://www.bahneman.com/liem/photos/tricks/digital-rebel-tricks.php http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Canon-Digital-Rebel-XT-Digital-Camera-R eview-/Control-Options.htm And, for all your help, here's a site you might find interesting if you're handy and work cheap. http://www.diylive.net/index.php/2006/03/16/diy-disposable-camera-flash-slave/ . |
|
Gold Member Username: Project6Post Number: 9568 Registered: Dec-03 | Greetings and welcome to the world of digital photography. Chris Laudermilk is the resident Canon guy, but I shall attempt to answer your WB concern since it is not camera specific. Personally I seldom use the Automatic White Balance feature on the camera as I have preference for warmer looking photographs. The Canon's Auto WB is excellent and almost always render accurate color tones in most situations. However, under flourescent lighting, the Auto White Balance gets somewhat confused but still pretty accurate. If you feel that you are not getting the tones you want just make adjustments to the white balance until it looks good to you. With the digital world, the white card or gray card is almost moot. The AWB on the Canon is so good, you will hardly use it. You can just get a photo stock white card and you will get an excellent reading, if you encounter changing light situations or uneven lighting. And for a hobbyist, it is more than enough, specially with your shooting habits. You can always adjust on the fly. I used to worry about that when I was shooting film and couldn't shake off the habit until about six months into digital. Digital is so convenient, and you tend to take more pictures. |
|
Gold Member Username: Project6Post Number: 9569 Registered: Dec-03 | ooops, I got cut off... Anyway, as I wrote before Canon's AWB is very reliable and once you get some unsightly color cast by reviewing your LC, you can correct on the spot by going to the other pre-set white balance or do the white card and Custom White Balance. As far as printing 18% gray cards...very difficult to get an accurate card on line that you can print yourself. Differences in printer settings, ink and the way your monitor is calibrated will affect the way you print the cards. I find that I do not use a lot of the Custom White Balance feature unless indoors covering a sporting event or some other situation that has funky lighting. With the Canon...you can pretty much leave it on AWB and shoot away. |
|
Silver Member Username: ClaudermilkPost Number: 368 Registered: Sep-04 | Canon's AWB is indeed very good. I normally leave it set to AWB, in about 99% of the shots it is fine. I don't think it's necessarily lazy ot leave the setting at auto with the auto setting as good as it is. I will use a custom WB when I know the lighting is going to be especially difficult, or I'm shooting studio lighting--taking the WB shot & making hte custom setting only takes a minute & I can skip that PP step. I would not try printing a grey card for the reason Berny gave. You really don't know what you're getting & it's almost certainly not neutral. As cheap as a basic grey card is, if you want to use one I don't see why not use the correct tool. I use the WhiBal card myself, a little pricier than the old cardboard cards, but very convenient. I know a lot of people use old Pringles lids also. Grey or white doesn't matter, what you are after is a neutral target (i.e., R=G=B). For setting custom WB, the manual should tell you how. If it's the same as the 20D, you take a WB shot with the grey card filling the middle of the frame. Then go to the Custom WB menu setting, and finally set the camera WB to Custom. BTW, if the kit lens you are referring to is the 18-55/3.5-5.6, it is ok as a starter lens but is not all that great. If it is the 17-85/4-5.6IS, that one is supposed to be pretty good for a kit lens. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 8999 Registered: May-04 | . Thanks for the answers, I'll get to play around with the camera this week and will probably have moer questions. For what I require, I would think the lower price lens would be sufficient. I haven't even checked to see if it is available as a separate item. I haven't convinced myself yet of the value of an IS lens for my needs. I understand the technology but I also comprehend the price. As often as possible I shoot from a tripod or monopod. In that situation, I can't see IS making any difference. In any case, the main dealer I buy from has a healthy stock of trade in gear so I will probably be looking for a gently pre-loved lens when the time comes. The lens I've been using is a 35-80mm Canon lens that was fairly inexpensive when I bought it years ago. I've got a 20-35mm and a 75-300mm. The latter two lenses are typically what I shoot with for my more "formal" shots and the mid-length lens gets its most frequent use when I'm doing more snapshot type work. Both the short and long lenses are the USM variety and have a definite advantage over the 33-80mm when it comes to simple clarity and sharpness. We'll see what the budget can stand when the time comes. I've had a few things that have needed repair/replacement this year and the credit card is starting to bulge. . |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9000 Registered: May-04 | . How about an opinion on Canon's Image Parameters? These seem to be an effort to duplicate the sort of differences I would find when using film. I'm used to picking either Velvia or Ektachrome based on where I'm headed for the day. Likewise the Canon parameters seem to be suitable as alternatives easily accessed on the menu for what I'm shooting. Canon's Parameter 1, with it's slightly higher saturations, would seem a good choice for flowers and such. P2 looks to be better for landscape and architecture. Yes/no? But are they too coarse as I find then in the camera to make that sort of assessment? I'm always wary of devices which make "corrections" for me. As with current TV's, the "Sharpness" control looks as if it can easily get out of hand very quickly. "Hello, here's a good dose of edge treatment to make everything look like a comic book." Meanwhile there's no defintion of any detail inside the image. Also, one of the sales staff where I purchased the camera suggested not using the B&W parameter but instead deleting the colors in the processing stages. Wha'jathink? So far I haven't loaded an image to the computer so I don't have a clue what to do once I start that process. Does the software provided by Canon give me everything a weekend shooter will need? . . |
|
Silver Member Username: ClaudermilkPost Number: 369 Registered: Sep-04 | I can't really help on parameters as I usually shoot RAW, so they don't do anything for me. I would say run a test shoot & play with the different settings on the same subject to see what you prefer. You are correct in that sharpness (and really any other PP work) can easily get out of hand; there are uncounted over-sharpened images on the web; the trick is to be subtle and not make it look like you did the work on the image that was done. This is part of why I prefer shooting RAW and using the more powerful PC to make those edits where I have complete control. I agree on the B&W. IIRC the in-camera setting simply strips out color information & makes it a grayscale. Not that that's neccessaarily bad, but it does limit your choices later. There are many B&W conversion techniques in Photoshop where it's still really an RGB image, you maintain some color to get the warm or cool tones that real B&W film has; you can also do fun stuff like sepia toning, duo-, tri-, and quad-toning. You can easily use up an entire afternoon on a single image playing with a B&W conversion.  Canon provides enough software to do what you need, but there's better alternatives out there; once you get familiar with the process, you can start looking at other alternatives that probably will work better. Most have a demo or trial version so you can try out the different choices to pick the one that works best for you. Now back to lenses. It sounds like you have a good collection that serves your needs. I would say stick with those for a bit before moving to new glass. Learn the new body, then see what you might need to supplement/replace. IS is mainly for low light handheld. I finally managed to tick off the 70-200 IS last weekend using a monopod; my technique must have improved to the point that the IS was getting no signal, so sent me a nice Err 01; turned it off & it was happy. But, when you need it, it's wonderful. Also, don't forget about Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron; they have several lenses that are generally thought to be the equal or near equal of Canon's at a fraction of the price. Exampless I know of is Sigma's 24-70 and 70-200 vs Canon's equivalent and Tokina's 12-24 vs Canon's 10-22. Take a look at reviews at fredmiranda, photodo (they're back now), and photozone. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9003 Registered: May-04 | . "You can easily use up an entire afternoon on a single image playing with a B&W conversion." Oh, great! Just what I need, another something to take me away from the things that really need doing! What a hobby!!! Thanks for the information. I have a friend down the street with a better mid-length lens so I can borrow that when I need something better than what I own. And once the dentist, the auto repair guy and a few others get paid down, I can look at lenses without going further into debt. Tell me about wide angle lenses incorporated into a mid-length lens. I had borrowed a 24-80, I think it was, and though convenient, I have a dedicated wide angle and didn't find it that useful. Is this just a trend I'm going to find when I look for a new mid-length lens or is there a reason for the amount of zoom in one lens? I know zooms have improved dramatically in the past few years, but does this make my dedicated wide angle obsolete? I didn't really study the pictures I took (before I gave them away) to compare my lens to the other at the same focal length but I'm going to guess my USM wide angle still has the better quality. Also, why shoot in RAW? I understand it is an uncompressed image but will someone shooting for their own pleasure, who doesn't want to sit for an afternoon getting just the right tint to the cheek of a mockingbird, notice a difference on a (maximum) 8X12" print? . . |
|
Gold Member Username: Project6Post Number: 9581 Registered: Dec-03 | Canon's Image Parameters are a great tool for those just really not wanting to fool around with custom settings, but is attracted to the versatility of the DSLR. It is a great way to entice the point and shoot user to venture into the DSLR arena, and of course, for those still wanting to learn more. "I'm always wary of devices which make "corrections" for me" Indeed and you should be. But as a more experienced user, I think you already know what you want out of your photos. So using these parameters would be a matter of how much control you want to relinquish to the camera. You can always play with the photograph as part of your workflow and to saturate or not is quite easy. I believe that Canon set-up the camera's features to appeal to the beginner as Canon's higher line ups focus more on user control and less pre-programmed in-camera processing. These additional features are usually getting ignored as the user gets more comfortable taking control. With your experience, I believe you should ignore these settings as well. Canon really took over that market when they released the Digital Rebel and Nikon had nothing for a while, until the D70 came out. If you are shooting for your own pleasure and would rather spend your time out in the field taking pictures, I would recommend shooting in the highest quality JPEG. RAW settings are for those who really want a maximum of control in how their photographs turn out. I shoot in JPEG most of the time and have had some of my work enlarged up to 20 x 30 with no problems. |
|
Silver Member Username: ClaudermilkPost Number: 370 Registered: Sep-04 | As Berny indicates, the more automatic settings are meant for the newer user coming from P&S cameras & who isn't ready for the manual controls. If you take a look at the 5D, you will notice only P, Av, Tv, and M modes; none of the P&S stuff to the right of the green box even exist. I expect the 1D series is the same. I mainly shoot RAW for two reasons: a) I'm a control freak & want to make all those decisions myself--even if I decide one setting in the converter is good enough for the whole shoot & I batch it, and b) I frequently shoot in very demanding lighting conditions that require I push the camera/lens capabilities (think 20D/f2.8 lens at f2.8, ISO 3200, and often getting pushed by 2 stops) see the Portfolio/Dance sections at http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com When I'm just shooting snaps in good lighting, I'm starting to use high quality JPEG more often again since the camera does a good job of making those easy conversions; I just haven't spent the time messing with the parameters. Now, back to lenses. I honetsly don't know what thought process goes into picking a particular focal length range of a lens. Obviously the ultra zooms are for convenience at the sacrifice of ultimate image quality, so the more limited zooms are making less of a compromise. The ultra wides are a reaction to the crop sensors; they are trying to get to the same FOV of normal wides on a 35mm camera. You want a 16mm wide angle on an APS-C Canon? You have to go to a 10mm ultra wide lens to get that. As to picking the lens, you just have to learn what ranges you tend to use most & pick the appropriate lens. If you're doing a lot of portraits, the 10-22 obviously isn't the right lens, however if you're into landscapes it's a fantastic lens. I'll use myself as an example. I currently have the 24-70/2.8L as my general lens, as on the 1.6x 20D its more like 38-112 and is the perfect range for the smaller venues I shoot. I will be adding the 70-200/2.8L IS (112-320) for larger venues for the same reason. I will be doing some landscape stuff later this year, so will get the Tokina 12-24/4 (19-38) for wide angle. Eventually I want to add the Sigma 120-300 (out to 480mm!) for getting really close shots & really big venues--and eventually get back into some motorsports shooting. I might add a 1.4x extender to add more reach, and an 85/1.8 to supplement my 50/1.8 for portraiture & for really low light stuff. So, each lens in my current line up & wishlist has a specific purpose in mind (it just happens by coincidence that what I need ends up giving 12-300 coverage). If you can borrow or rent lenses that ought to be a good way to try out the various ranges & see what works best for you. I am fortunate in that I've been able to dip into a nice collection of lenses, so I know the 70-200 I'm after will work as I've used it more than it's owner in the last month. I'll also be borrowing the 300/2.8IS & 2x extender at the end of this month to try some shots of Mars (960mm should be long enough...). I have also tried out a few lenses I found didn't work for me, so eliminated them from consideration. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9008 Registered: May-04 | . "I'll also be borrowing the 300/2.8IS & 2x extender at the end of this month to try some shots of Mars (960mm should be long enough... " Does not compute, Will Robinson! It's been several years since I purchased my set of extenders, but I thought I remembered a 2X extender giving merely the ability to take a 300mm lens to a 600mm focal length. One thing in particular that intrigues me about the digital cameras is the ability to see what I've done immediately after its been done. And then making corrections if necessary. This would seem as if it will make getting to know the camera, lenses, flash, et al far simpler than when I first started shooting film. And, far less expensive. I would imagine that the Parameters combined with the various presets for WB could make some interesting studies. In this case, I would assume the WB shift would take precedence over the Parameters. Well, that's something I might play around with just to see what happens. I assume both of you (and anyone else interested in joining this thread) began shooting film. Other than just having the freedom to throw away a trial/bad shot at no cost and try again instantly, what have you found that has changed or influenced how you shoot with a digital camera that you didn't have with film? Chris, in your close up shots of the insects, were those shot that way or are those the result of cropping? . |
|
Silver Member Username: ClaudermilkPost Number: 371 Registered: Sep-04 | 300mm + 2x = 600mm + 1.6x (sensor crop factor) = effective 960mm. I indeed started with film way, way back on a cheap Kodak instamatic of some sort. Moved to SLRs by taking over my parent's Olympus OM-2, then my own Minolta 7000i. Still have both kits in fact, they're just not worth selling any more. I found the same things as you: the instant feedback helped to accelerate the learning curve & I really understand some basic concepts that never really sank in with film. It also freed up the trigger finger, so you can experiment more. One of the really nice things is that while WB is--if anything--even more critical, it is changeable on a frame-by-frame basis like ISO, which is impossible with film. Post processing is quite different than film as well; you can do a lot more & it's easier. I spent my share of time in the darkroom & never really got all that great at anything other than trying to get a decently-exposed print. While I'm no master at Photoshop, I can more effectively correct a digital image than a film one. The insect shots are cropped to one extent or another, they were taken with the 50/1.8--not really a macro lens. The dragonfly was easier since he was posing for me, the butterly was a PITA to catch. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9015 Registered: May-04 | . 1.8?!!! Yiminee!!! With a lens that fast, you could take pictures inside your own underwe@r*. Not that you'd want to, of course. But, still ... (Can't post the word "under - wear" on the forum. Good criminee! . |
|
Silver Member Username: ClaudermilkPost Number: 372 Registered: Sep-04 | Yeah, and I want to update it to the 50/1.4 for better low-light performance & better build quality. Then, of course, the current low-light, narrow DOF holy grail: the 85/1.2L; a massive, expensive, and very sweet chunk of glass (I have played with one, drool...). And, of course, the topper if you can find one for sale and happen to have about $3k laying around, the 50/1.0.  Now the nice thing is the 50/1.8 Mk II currently on the market costs all of $70, so go out and get yourself a copy. It may have Playskool build quality, but the optics and image quality are excellent. Oh, and if you really want to get crazy, the Canon 7 rangefinder 35mm with a 50/0.95 (as in LESS than f1.0).  http://captjack.exaktaphile.com/canonflex/Canon%207.htm Looks like there was just one on eBay wanting $700, no sale. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9026 Registered: May-04 | . Has the subject of monitor set up been covered in the forum? I've done the Adobe Gamma but that seems to have pretty wide tolerances. It is more about preferences than anything that might resemble accuracy. And after you make your choices, you can alter all of them by switching to a different color temp for the display. I'm not sure what that's all about if I'm trying to get something that looks correct and not just OK. This seems to go along with the Parameters and the WB. There isn't anything approaching an absolute for the typical consumer. It revolves around a point and shoot camera and a $29 DVD player approach to everything. Make it look "pretty" and that will suffice. Sometimes I want pretty and sometimes I want accurate. How do I at least go about setting up my monitor for accuracy without spending gobs of money? . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Project6Post Number: 10027 Registered: Dec-03 | Monitor set up and calibration is really important if you expect your prints to come out the way you see them on the monitor. The one obstacle I encountered is when bringing my files to a photo lab. I have calibrated my monitor to industry standards to ensure that what I see on the screen would match the prints that I want from the lab. Somehow, the prints always end up looking different. I discovered that the lab was making its own corrections to the files, so I made sure that I specify to make no corrections to the photos I want them to print. Everything was fine after that. The typical consumer, who want direct prints from the camera, usually get what they see on the LCD if they do not fiddle around with the photo files on their computer. The screens on these cameras are usually calibrated to match prints very closely despite what you see on the PC's monitor. Basically you want your PC monitor to match what you see on the camera's LCD. A good way to do this is by using a monitor calibration tool like the Colorvision Spyder. Your calibrated monitor will ensure that any color changes you do to your photo file will reflect accurately in print. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9030 Registered: May-04 | . Colorvision Spyder? Free? Not free? Do I want to know? I've seen some pictures taken with the 50mm/f1.8 lens. For the cost, they can't be beat or even roughed up a bit. How effective is a fixed length 50mm lens on a digital Rebel? I'd forgotten about the 1.6 difference between the DSLR and the 35mm version. That makes this about an 80mm lens, if I figure right. That would be great for portraits but I don't do portraits. How easy is it to get used to that length in a fixed focal length with the DSLR? Is there a slightly shorter alternative? For $70 it's certainly worth having given the quality of the shots, but should I be looking at another prime lens to go along with it? . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Project6Post Number: 10041 Registered: Dec-03 | Unfortunately, it is not free. You can get it from amazon for $69. I doubt you are going to need a more than rudimentary monitor calibration specially with your photo niche. Personally, I think it is well worth it. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000ES4PYU |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9035 Registered: May-04 | . Well, I used it and it claims I have successfully calibrated my monitor. Whoopee! |
|
Silver Member Username: ClaudermilkPost Number: 373 Registered: Sep-04 | I currently use the older Spyder & it makes a huge difference. As Berny mentioned, you do have to tell labs to not color correct your prints. I'm looking at switching to the eyeOne after I upgrade to a newer LCD screen. That easyrgb site looks like just tweaking colors on web pages that also use them. Seems like limited usefulness & certainly not a substitute for a properly calibrated monitor. Not a bad idea though. On the lenses. Your calculations are correct, the 50/1.8 is a 35mm equivalent of 82mm & change. To get an equivalent 50mm, Canon has the 35/2 which would be about 56mm. There are also several wider lenses in their lineup, though it seems to me Canon's wide primes aren't though to be the best. I keep seeing Sigma's mentioned as probably better choices for the really wide stuff. One thing to remember is that even though our 1.6 crop sensors are givin an equivalent field of view of the longer lenses, the perspective is that of the actual lens; it's a subtle but important difference. As for which primes to choose, I think that depends even more on what you want to do with it than zooms. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9050 Registered: May-04 | . I don't think I want another lens for \i[really] wide stuff. Even with the crop factor, I think my current wide lens will suffice for now. (I've still got a film camera to use in case I absolutley need a few extra mm's in the lens.) I'm thinking of something that actually places me around 35mm again. I may stick with the 24mm end of my wide angle. Since it's a fairly narrow zoom, it doesn't suffer much when used at either extremes. If something else comes along, then I'll decice how useful another lens would be. I took a few shots this weekend and I'm finding things to like and dislike. There's nothing about the camera that bothers me other than the amount of control it can exert on the shots. There's a bit too much for my tastes, but I may get used to that. The auto white balance works quite well 90% of the time. In obvious conditions (bright overhead sunlight, for example), the specific settings might have a slight advantage, but not much to worry about so far. What is going to be frustrating for a while is the amount of variation I can introduce to the printed pictures. I find it very useful to be able to touch up a spot here and there with the Canon software. I brought out some areas which were somewhat lost in the exposure of the original by working with the shot just a bit. However, the lack of any "correct" settings for the printer and monitor means I have too many places where I can change the shot from what I saw in the viewfinder. Kind of like having a HT system where there are too many places to set volume levels and crossovers. Is it worthwhile taking a few shots to a good photo lab and having them run off copies of what's inside the camera's memory? My printer is too old to have docking capabilities, so everything I print out has the possibility of being altered somewhere before I see the final print. With everything set "flat", that is what I get. The images are slightly washed out and lack contrast. The warmth of the original isn't in the print so far. I'm thinking of taking a few shots of objects I can have as a reference, then taking the photos as they exist in the camera, printing them as direct copies, and using those as a reference for adjusting my monitor and printer. Sound OK or just too much work? . |
|
Platinum Member Username: Project6Post Number: 10205 Registered: Dec-03 | Yes, a good photo lab is your friend and one of the best resources regarding color correction and your direct from camera prints. If you like the prints straight from your camera and the way you envision them, then it is worthwhile to use that as a reference to make adjustments on your monitor and printer. I don't think it is too much work at all. |
|
Silver Member Username: ClaudermilkPost Number: 374 Registered: Sep-04 | Welcome to the world of color management. ;) Once you have that monitor calibreated, then you have a known baseline to work from. After that, you can work with the lab to get the output you expect. Many of the better labes these days ought to have a profile for their printers you can use to soft proof on the computer. Check to make sure you are shooting in sRGB mode and not Adobe RGB--I frequently see people with the washed out color problem & the issue is usually that they have the camera set to aRGB, but are viewing & printing in sRGB. That camera can go from full P&S mode to completely manual. It really depends on what you want out of it at the time. |
|
Gold Member Username: Jan_b_vigneDallas, TX Post Number: 9054 Registered: May-04 | . I checked and the camera was set to sRGB. (I'm getting old and you always have more things to check with each passsing day.) The prints are getting better as I play with some of the color management in the software and priner. But I think I need more reference material to allow for finer resolution of accurate color and contrast when I want it from the set up. One problem I see already is the ease with which you can push a picture from fine but not quite there to, "geez, who would have thought it would look like that?!" Some of the gradations in the software for processing and printing are too coarse to be of much real world use. But I'm just getting started with the system, so, possibly I'll learn more about the process and be able to make better decisions in a short amount of time. From what I've read, going to Photoshop is somewhat like learning to climb rocks. Possible, but a bit daunting. Everything I've read indicates the simpler software which comes with the camera, computer and printer/scanner should be able to produce good results unless I'm either shooting for profit or going to enlarge to well beyond what my printer can manage. I will never do the former. If the latter, then the shot goes to a lab, is the way I figure it. Actually, since I'm a weekend user, I like the P&S stuff being on the camera. It's quite easy to ignore when I want to concentrate on the shot and most of what I do is in the Av or M modes. (The camera seems a bit confusing so far in regards to what the buttons and wheel controls change when I switch back and forth between those two modes. But that is just memorization for the most part and will come with time.) But for snaps in the backyard with the dogs, it works great. I've ordered the 50mm/f1.8 lens and it should be here in a few days. That will be another bit of learning since I've relied on zooms since I bought the original Rebel 35mm. Three questions. Where do you set the color temp on your monitors? Daylight, 5000°, or a warmer, 6500°? Should I be shooting a few pure color shots to use as reference. Just a sheet each of blue, read, yellow and green? Or, shall I just stick with shots of colorful and not so colorful everyday objects? It appears the testing magazines shoot a selection of colorful items against a fairly benign backdrop. Finally, since the monitor (additive) and the print (subtractive) rely on two different types of color mixing, do the prints ever look exactly like the monitor or do I learn over time how to aniticipate what will come on one when I see it on the other? I know dry ink can't look exactly like glowing phosphors, but how close should they be? . |
|
Silver Member Username: ClaudermilkPost Number: 376 Registered: Sep-04 | You can get the monitor and printer to look exactly the same, but the catch is you must have all pieces calibrated. The monitor is the easy part with just a spyder & you're done. The printer is a much more complex beast. Here's a good website that covers the various options: http://www.colorvision.com/store_spec_pf-rightforme.shtml I was fortunate in that I had access to a full-blown spectrophotometer-based system to do mine, so I have custom profiles for each of the papers I use & the Canon ink I use. When using my ICC profiles, my prints are so close to the monitor you have to set them side by side & still most you can't tell any difference. Another good site to look at is http://www.normankoren.com/index.html I still haven't gotten through all his articles, but there's a lot of good information there. If your monitor will get the whites & blacks needed with 6500, go that way. My last monitor couldn't get my highlights set at 6500, so I had to compromise. FOr software, yes, Photoshop is a steep learning curve at first. I found two books that are an enormous help: Brice Fraser's Real World Photoshop and Martin Evening's Photoshop for Digital Photographers. Both do a very good job of describing how to use the various tools to retouch the images & why. The manual really sucks (I've RTFM & didn't learn a whole lot). Other options are Elements which is simpler, GIMP which is free (Windows version has a Photoshop-emulation plugin), and Picture Window Pro. I'm also starting to take a look at LightZone which is aimed specifically at photographers doing retouching & is meant to work more like a darkroom. Take a look at them; I am really not impressed with Canon's software & suspect it is just making things more difficult (I have none of it installed any more). If you do decide to go the full-boat PS CS2 route, there's a couple of ways to get it for less than the $600 list--legally. Get a Wacom tablet which has Elements included & you can upgrade to CS2 (oh, and you get the tablet in the bargain ). You can also buy an older copy of PS off ebay, then get the upgrade version of CS2. Once you get used to the camera, the controls are second nature. I know a lot of people say the Nikons have better ergonomics, but for the most part I find Canon's (at least on the 20D) to be quite good; I can make adjustments on the fly without having to think about it too much now. The primes will take a similar learning curve, but you get used to it & the image quality is addictive. |
|
New member Username: Chris_pichadoSan Antonio, TX USA Post Number: 1 Registered: Feb-07 | This is a quick $.02 of mine regarding the questions on the Canon 50mm 1.8 prime. As you showed curiosity about how it is taking photos without zoom, it definately is a 'culture shock'... It teaches you how to move around your subject, and that is a valuable skill in itself. I shoot a lot of local bands in bars and local venues, most of the time in low light. This lens is the best value for that type of shooting. Of course, there are other lenses with a lower f-stop, and a wider range, but for $90 (which is what I paid at a local mom-n-pop shop) it was literally the best bang-for-buck on the cheaper end. The DOF is awesome for shooting portraits, and having to move in close to the action to make the shot perfect adds to the experience. While you can save up and get one with zoom later on, using this glass will definately teach you not to be lazy on your shots - getting on your back/belly to get a lower angle shot of someone, or duck and running through the crowd to get the perfect shot... This lens is perfect for what I shoot currently. Like I mentioned, I shoot bands - the shots from above the guitarist down to their guitar do a great job of showing off the DOF (frets act like a great metric for showing DOF). It is definately (IMHO) a better tool than a prime wide angle. But then again, I do not shoot a lot of architecture. Hope this helps! |