Disappointed....talk me down from the ledge..

cwphotos

So sorry if this isnt in the right spot but I just needed to vent/plead. I have been doing pro-am photography for over a year now and some of my work has turned out really well. So I upgraded to the Xt and was beginning to enjoy it until yesterday. I realise that I must not know anything about cameras. I was using ISO 400 for day shooting and I found some noise in the shadows. Not sure how it got on 400 but it did. Then last night there was an incredible, yes I mean incredible Lunar halo around the moon that filled the sky. So I tripod the camera and set the shutter a little longer....and crap. This pics are really crappy. So I go inside thinking that there is an awesome phenominon going on outside and I dont have the skills to capture it.

So anyway getting to my point. I suck at using cameras I guess. I was at a wedding the other day and the photographer was using a 10D with the 1.4 50mm lens and no flash in low light. He asked me to try his lens on my Xt becasue he wanted to see it work in low light. He flipped to manual and blazed throught the menus and took some pics. They turned out great. Well anyway enough ranting, flame if you wish, but why cant i take what I see and get it on film (well digital but you get the idea)....... wxwax

cmason

I have heard it said that the best (and first) camera accessory is a good set of gray stuff between your ears.... :

cwphotos

That seems to be the truth here. Im more the hands on learner so...as such I cant really just read a ton of stuff. I have learned some...like changing ISO and white balance etc... Just not the proper settings for certain situations.

JimM

Can you post some of these pictures?

cwphotos

Yeah... Im at work right now.... wink
So when I go home later I will.

NHBubba

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again!

I've got a lot of friends that make some very positive comments about my photography. What I know (and they don't necessarily know) is that for a given good shot I've probably shot 1000 like it that are aweful. Keep trying, learning, and most of all experimenting. That is, in my opinion, the most wonderful thing about digital photography: that it lets you experiment and try different things almost at no cost.

What did Benjamin Franklin say: "I didn't fail the test, I just found 100 ways to do it wrong." (Sorry.. watched "National Treasure" a little too recently.)

cmason

I had a similar experience with my XT. I have used 35mm for many years, but they were basically manual cameras (Olympus OM-1n was my first). While I had a Rebel XS, I rarely did anything more than use it on automatic mode, as I couldnt justify the film expense, and I had long since gotten rid of my aging darkroom stuff.

So, I have lots of experience in composing shots, considering my subject, light, balance, etc, but zero in post process.

When I got my XT, I quickly learned that the camera was not what I was familiar with in 35mm. It was in some ways "too smart". My example was at my kid's soccer game. I set the speed high, upped the ISO and let the appeture fall where is balanced, and shot away. The pics on the LCD looked great! But when I got home, and looked at them on the PC, they were awful. Turns out the AI Focus was focusing on the wrong soccer player! (lessons learned on setting focus pts and focus method)

So, what I have done is carefully read thru the manual, several times. On a Saturday, I will go in the backyard, and test a few of the settings, taking lots of shots to see how they turn out. It has been very helpful to understand how this thing works. In fact, now I have several custom functions set so I can get to my favorite settings....

DJ-S1

cwphotos wrote:

Not sure how it got on 400 but it did. Then last night there was an incredible, yes I mean incredible Lunar halo around the moon that filled the sky. So I tripod the camera and set the shutter a little longer....and crap.

You need to shoot moon shots with settings approaching daylight. Maybe you blew everything out with slow shutter speeds? Search the forums for moon shots, there's lots of tips a settings talked about.

And BTW, you will NOT get flamed on DGrin.

Bodley

cmason wrote:

I have heard it said that the best (and first) camera accessory is a good set of gray stuff between your ears.... :

You have the B&H item number?

Justiceiro

No flaming on Dgrin. That's why I moved.

Listen, any camera takes getting used to. Especially when you are going from film to digital. When I was shooting film, I used an old totally manual praktica SLR, and occasionally a Yashica rangefinder. I hadn't really dealt with autofocus until I got my first digital, and it was such a "dumb" camera that it pretty much went for the biggest DOF possible. When I first rolled with my 20d I thought that I had turned into the world's worst photographer overnight. A month or so and you'll get bettwr for two reasons;

1- you'll understand how AF works, and how to throw your camera around to maximize its performance.

2- You'll remember to reset everything back to the defaults, and stop shooting at ISO 1600 on bright sunny days.


Good luck.

Shay Stephens

Getting your photographic priorities straight
I suspect your problems stem from misplaced emphasis on noise and other technical aspects of shooting digitally.

The most important aspect of photography is not noise in the shadows or lack thereof, it's the image as a whole, the exposure, the lighting, the focus. I had to shoot a wedding over new years in a church that did not allow flash and was lit very poorly. My only option short of sitting down and waiting for the wedding to end was to shoot handheld at ISO 3200, f/2.8, and 1/30 of a second. You can believe that there is noise in the image, but who cares, I have the image.

It's like not squeezing out the window of a burning building to escape because you will tear your shirt on the ragged window frame. Misplaced priority on not tearing the shirt when the priority should really be on not getting burned (hint, the shirt is going to get ruined one way or the other).

It comes down to priorities. If you have the light to shoot at lower ISO and get cleaner results, then do it, but if not, then embrace the noise as a part of the process and get the best darn image you are capable of. Lesser mortals will marvel at your skill

Little do they know the skill lies in accepting technical limitations for what they are and doing the best with what you have, and if all you have is ISO 3200, then that is what you use. Camera shake is far worse than noise, and underexposure is far worse than noise too.

Embrace the noise.

Now a parting thought. Camera manufacturers have foisted on the world the idea that photography is easy and all you need is the right camera. It is pure lies. Photography is hard and takes work and experience to do it right, especially in tricky situations like you mentioned. There is no easy answer to this other than working hard to understand how a camera works, how to determine exposure (manually) and when to do what. Two years of dedicated work should get you in a position where you have the ability to shoot what you see in a reliable fashion.

Stop using auto modes if you want to really learn the camera. You can go back to auto exposure modes for convenience once you have learned, but until then, consider it off limits.

cwphotos

Thanks all for the comments. Im actually re-reading my Xt manual again today at work (very, very slow here today) to kind of find some more tid bits. Shay, I think you are right. I do tend to focus on the little stuff rather than my whole shot. Speaking of which, here are some I took the other day. These are the least noisy: http://cwphotos.smugmug.com/gallery/1120082

Shay Stephens

Speaking of this photo as an example:
http://cwphotos.smugmug.com/gallery/1120082/1/52144483

That will print wonderfully with no hint of noise at all. Even worst case scenario, you can hit a really noisy image with chroma noise reduction and it will print great without a digital look. I leave luminance noise alone and never try to reduce it. People are already familiar with film grain and luminance noise looks just like film grain. It's the chroma noise that looks digital and odd to most people.

My only suggestion would be to concentrate on the framing, tilting down to get the feet is one of the hardest things to do, I fight with it all the time. If you are that close to the feet, include them and the photo will look more complete on a subconsious level than if the feet just barely get cropped out. Watch the edges of the frame, and try to keep the empty space above the heads useful or at least pleasant. I fight with too much head space too.

cwphotos wrote:

Speaking of which, here are some I took the other day. These are the least noisy: http://cwphotos.smugmug.com/gallery/1120082

mercphoto

"Sir, step away from the ledge and gently pick your camera back up"

Listen to what Shay says, those are very good points. A few comments on your posted pictures though. The first thing that popped out at me is you are not paying attention to the direction of light and you are not using fill-flash. Yes I know that was daylight, but in a few pictures you were shooting at the "shadow side" of the subjects, which is why they are darker than the background. Fill-flash will fix that nicely. Another photo had great composition, but because of the location of the sun the girl's head literally cast a shadow across the guy's face. Simply rotating the couple would solve that problem. And yet other photos had very nice lighting to them. That tells me that the one thing you should learn to do is pay attention to the directon and the quality of light falling on your subjects.

Don't fret a bit of noise in the shadows. Its not the technical nature of a photograph that makes it great or makes it lowsy.

JimM

with everything Bill and Shay said.

pathfinder

Fill-flash is a truly great assett, even in the sunshine -

The shadows on the couples faces are a much bigger issue than ISO 400.

And like Shay said, no Auto modes - stick to Av and Tv or manual

I think this thread really belongs in the Technique area, rather than in the Cameras section. If there are no objections, I will move it later this evening.

mercphoto

pathfinder wrote:

Fill-flash is a truly great assett, even in the sunshine -

The shadows on the couples faces are a much bigger issue than ISO 400.

Fill-flash, outdoors, sun with sporadic shadows cast by a canopy of trees. Canon 20D and 580EX and Omnibounce:


And agreed - the shadows are the problem with your pictures, not the miniscule noise.

pathfinder

I have been burned so many times shooting in the dappled shade of tree limbs - with slide films it was truly a disaster. And it is easy to overlook visualy unless I really look for the shadow and highlights.

Fill Flash is one of the really great advantages of modern cameras and electronic flash units.

Bob Bell

cwphotos wrote:

So sorry if this isnt in the right spot but I just needed to vent/plead. I have been doing pro-am photography for over a year now and some of my work has turned out really well. So I upgraded to the Xt and was beginning to enjoy it until yesterday. I realise that I must not know anything about cameras. I was using ISO 400 for day shooting and I found some noise in the shadows. Not sure how it got on 400 but it did. Then last night there was an incredible, yes I mean incredible Lunar halo around the moon that filled the sky. So I tripod the camera and set the shutter a little longer....and crap. This pics are really crappy. So I go inside thinking that there is an awesome phenominon going on outside and I dont have the skills to capture it.

So anyway getting to my point. I suck at using cameras I guess. I was at a wedding the other day and the photographer was using a 10D with the 1.4 50mm lens and no flash in low light. He asked me to try his lens on my Xt becasue he wanted to see it work in low light. He flipped to manual and blazed throught the menus and took some pics. They turned out great. Well anyway enough ranting, flame if you wish, but why cant i take what I see and get it on film (well digital but you get the idea)....... :cry

Its really hard to be good at all facets of photography.

For the last 5-6 years I have shot product and advertising and I'm very competent at it. These paid shoots have funded my photography hobby. If you put a model on a $100,000 custom chopper, I will get the shots, that that same model against a background and I have issues. I hardly every shoot portraits and I have to take a lot to keep a few. I shoot a handful of highschool and college football games each year and I do well at it and sell a lot of prints. Put me 35 yards from a duck and I have to really think about what I am doing and I have a low ratio of keepers. I am working hard on wildlife and landscape because its fun to me. Hopefully this year I will be a lot better it. The point of this is that its okay to not be perfect at everything. Instead of finding fault in your skills, google lunar halo's and find out what kind of settings other people use to capture them. I think I saw someone post a series of them on Photo.net or FredMiranda.com last year.

Hope this helps.

pathfinder

Bob Bell wrote:

Its really hard to be good at all facets of photography.

For the last 5-6 years I have shot product and advertising and I'm very competent at it. These paid shoots have funded my photography hobby. If you put a model on a $100,000 custom chopper, I will get the shots, that that same model against a background and I have issues. I hardly every shoot portraits and I have to take a lot to keep a few. I shoot a handful of highschool and college football games each year and I do well at it and sell a lot of prints. Put me 35 yards from a duck and I have to really think about what I am doing and I have a low ratio of keepers. I am working hard on wildlife and landscape because its fun to me. Hopefully this year I will be a lot better it. The point of this is that its okay to not be perfect at everything. Instead of finding fault in your skills, google lunar halo's and find out what kind of settings other people use to capture them. I think I saw someone post a series of them on Photo.net or FredMiranda.com last year.

Hope this helps.

There have been a number of threads about shooting lunar images here on dgrin - Here are links to several of them:):

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=20638&highlight=moon+Pathfinder [imgr]http://pathfinder.smugmug.com/photos/3258135-L.jpg[/imgr]

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=8563&highlight=moon+Pathfinder

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=2432&highlight=moon+Pathfinder

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=954&highlight=moon+Pathfinder

sser

The best thing ive ever taught myself since ive started shooting is that if i take 50,100 or whatever shots but if i can get 1 or more great keepers out of it It was all worth it sounds cheesy but its my point of view.. not all shots are gonna be amazing

ginger_55

short rant
if the photo is "more" than the tech flaws, such as noise level, why when posted here, do so many say, "yeah, nice, but see that noise in the sky at 2 o'clock exactly.

I must say, I have been trying very hard not to post photos with technical flaws here. I keep in mind Andy's observation that we are "known by the worst photo, rather than the best". I sometimes post, then take a photo out immediately because of the possibility that it could bring the whole set down.

Once, just once, recently, I did post a slightly soft shot, explained why I was posting it, it was not part of a series. Since I explained my goal, etc, I did get away with it. In other words, I did get some nice responses.
(maybe it was noisy, but I doubt that as I usually "destroy noise I see before I post a photo)

If I post a photo and it is mentioned that it is noisy, I usually get rid of the noise, if possible.

But this is the most technically oriented bunch I have ever run into. Just my humble opinion and my short rant.

On the other hand, I did post a bunch of 3200 ISO shots from Christmas. An amazing lack of noise. Someone even commented on that. I attribute it to the exposures being right on, or very close.

But noise has never bothered me that much, I have learned here, though, it bothers others. And is an issue!

anon

ginger_55

I looked at the photos, I personally did not see any noticeable noise, but why are the originals avail and no larges?

ginger

cwphotos

Hmmm...not sure Ginger. I'll check my settings. Thanks for all the replies folks. Im going to try and shoot the full moon tonight and see what I can get.

cwphotos

Oh, also another note here folks. In the pics with the obvious half light half dark faces I was actually going for that look. It seemed interesting for me....though Im not sure I will do it again. Also I must have said like 50 times during the shoot "Man I hate this light".

CBC1260

This is my first post, but I feel your pain, so please don't jump. Here are some links to training that can help you get it together.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007KXMCQ/104-1439343-0737503?n=502394

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00091UJ0Q/ref=pd_sbs_p_1/104-1439343-0737503?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=502394

You might be able to find these cheaper on Ebay. Don't despair, all of us had to start at the beginning.

cwphotos wrote:

So sorry if this isnt in the right spot but I just needed to vent/plead. I have been doing pro-am photography for over a year now and some of my work has turned out really well. So I upgraded to the Xt and was beginning to enjoy it until yesterday. I realise that I must not know anything about cameras. I was using ISO 400 for day shooting and I found some noise in the shadows. Not sure how it got on 400 but it did. Then last night there was an incredible, yes I mean incredible Lunar halo around the moon that filled the sky. So I tripod the camera and set the shutter a little longer....and crap. This pics are really crappy. So I go inside thinking that there is an awesome phenominon going on outside and I dont have the skills to capture it.

So anyway getting to my point. I suck at using cameras I guess. I was at a wedding the other day and the photographer was using a 10D with the 1.4 50mm lens and no flash in low light. He asked me to try his lens on my Xt becasue he wanted to see it work in low light. He flipped to manual and blazed throught the menus and took some pics. They turned out great. Well anyway enough ranting, flame if you wish, but why cant i take what I see and get it on film (well digital but you get the idea)....... :cry

Steve Cavigliano

CW,
Those shots didn't turn out bad at all

You are too hard on yourself. Most of us have had to experience the same learning curve as you are now facing.

When we first start shooting, we can't figure out why the camera doesn't capture what we see Then, as we figure out the basics of exposure and capturing 2 dimensional images, our pics and skills improve. As we gather more knowledge we become dangerous :uhoh We know enough to do some damge, good or bad, but don't quite have a handle on when to use this knowledge or why it works like it does. I refer to knowing the technical aspects that people always harp on. Things like image noise. After awhile, the light goes on....lol and we finally get it. Things like noise and minor motion blur take a backseat to getting the shot, good composition and shooting interesting subjects from interesting perspectives. Some folks eventually get so good, they see light. They don't "see the light", but they actually see lighting, and how that lighting plays on the subject, instead of just seeing something kewl to shoot.

Hang in there. As I mentioned, most of us (except for Shay ) have had to go through the same growing pains. Some folks catch on fast, others never get it Hang around here, heed and apply the feedback and advice you receive and you'll be amazed at the progress you will make and in the improvement you will see in your shots

Sorry for the sermon....lol

Steve

erich6

Shay Stephens wrote:

My only suggestion would be to concentrate on the framing, tilting down to get the feet is one of the hardest things to do, I fight with it all the time. If you are that close to the feet, include them and the photo will look more complete on a subconsious level than if the feet just barely get cropped out. Watch the edges of the frame, and try to keep the empty space above the heads useful or at least pleasant. I fight with too much head space too.

Yes, I fight with this same issue all the time also.

Great advice Shay.