on a journey to capture crisp night pics...

[disneygirl76]

Hi everyone, I recently started another thread about a wide angle lens but I'm learning that might not be what I need on my journey to capture crisp night pics.

This is what I have:
Canon Rebel XSi body
Canon 18 - 55 mm lens (came with body)
Canon 75 - 300 mm lens (added later)

This is my goal:
I would like to be able to capture clean and crisp night pics showing the warm glow of Main Street and all of WDW. And I would like to be able to get day time pics with natural light. So basically, the goal is to be able to walk around the parks, capturing natural crisp photos, during the day and night. (I understand that I will have to learn the f stop settings so that I can get a faster shutter so that I can capture more crisp night time pics. )

This is what I know:
I need to take a class to learn all the the settings but on the preprogrammed automatic settings, I notice the color sometimes is off. I was recommended to get a 55mm ultraviolet cover to help with natural light but I often find the pics end up with a blue like tint. I love warm photos with natural light. I don't like using my flash. So I know I need to learn the manual settings.

All this being said:
Is there another lens that would be better for walking around then the ones that I already have? (FYI - i usually never use the zoom lens)

And in an attempt to learn this camera - is there online guides that you recommend or should we take a class?

Thanks!

 

[KeithVH]

Well, "crisp" is a function of several things:

• Shutter speed of the exposure
• Focal length of the lens
• Quality of the lens
• ISO setting
• Technique

NOTE: Many of these things are inter-related, changing one will affect another.

Faster shutter speeds, to get sharp pics, in most cases, is the first obvious fix. At night, that can be more difficult. Yes, potentially a lens like a 50/1.8 would help with that. It's a pretty good lens too. Unless you WANT a long exposure at night - which is the start of the trade-offs. But, you also have other trade-offs when you open the lens to let in more light. Like what is perceived as being in focus. All other things being equal, when you focus on things farther away from you, more objects in front of or behind the point you focused on will seem to be sharper.

When you use a longer focal length, especially handheld, the length will accentuate ANY movement of the camera. So for doing walkarounds on Main Street, for example, using the 18-55 is better than the 75-300.

UNLESS you have REALLY good technique. That means being able to hold the camera really steady under a lot of different conditions. Tuck your elbows in to your body to brace, holding the camera with both hands, timing your breathing to the shutter release, etc.

Lens quality, unless you really want to spendmoney, is something you shouldn't worry about. You have lens that will do the job.

As for ISO setting, it's not just about how that affects the shutter speed but, for night shots, about noise and image quality. This is why need need a faster lens in some cases. OR. Carry and use a tripod. ANY camera support is better than none. Truly, if you want sharp pics at night, a tripod is the way to go and will get you the most improvement compared to all the above.

There are a lot of books and online stuff to learn the technical aspects of shooting but I would recommend a class if you can get in one. The human<->human interaction of the class is probably a better learning experience for this type of knowledge. Beyond that, I do endorse you getting the Canon50/1.8 lens. You would be surprised how good that inexpensive lens can be. And you might want to think about a tripod. Even if you get a small one, Disney trashcans make great places to mount them if you want to keep out of everyone's way.

 

[wdwmagic]

I would strongly recommend a book on the basics of exposure so you are completely comfortable with the relationship of aperture, iso, and shutter speed.

This is a great one:

http://www.amazon.com/Understanding...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1336940759&sr=1-1

Things like filters and color balance are a drop in the ocean compared to understanding the basics of taking a photo with a camera that has some manual controls.

 

[disneygirl76]

Thank you so much for the lens and book advice. I looked up the lens and it is really inexpensive in comparison to the cost of most lens. And I need to learn how to use this camera so I am going to get the book too. I am still intrigued with the different types of lens. I need to learn why ones are used in each setting and am curious in what setting a person would use a wide lens v. a standard lens like the one I already have.

 

[wdwmagic]

Thank you so much for the lens and book advice. I looked up the lens and it is really inexpensive in comparison to the cost of most lens. And I need to learn how to use this camera so I am going to get the book too. I am still intrigued with the different types of lens. I need to learn why ones are used in each setting and am curious in what setting a person would use a wide lens v. a standard lens like the one I already have.

Wide angle gives you a wide field of the view. The smaller the focal length, the wider the view. ie. A 10mm wide angle gives a wider field of view than a 35mm lens. So a standard lens is typically in the 35 to 50mm range, so that gives a view somewhat similar to what you get with your own eyes. A 10mm wide angle gives a much wider view.

Wider views are typically used in landscape shots where you are attempting to capture a very wide area. They are also used in creative situations to give a particular look to the shot.

Standard lens are used for all kinds of shots.

Choosing the lens "wideness" is really a case of what you are trying to do with it. If you look at the lens you have, set one of the zooms to the widest and see how much of the scene you can see, then set it to the longest and see how more restricted the view is, and how things are magnified more.

 

[CP_alum08]

Hi everyone, I recently started another thread about a wide angle lens but I'm learning that might not be what I need on my journey to capture crisp night pics.

This is what I have:
Canon Rebel XSi body
Canon 18 - 55 mm lens (came with body)
Canon 75 - 300 mm lens (added later)

This is my goal:
I would like to be able to capture clean and crisp night pics showing the warm glow of Main Street and all of WDW. And I would like to be able to get day time pics with natural light. So basically, the goal is to be able to walk around the parks, capturing natural crisp photos, during the day and night. (I understand that I will have to learn the f stop settings so that I can get a faster shutter so that I can capture more crisp night time pics. )

This is what I know:
I need to take a class to learn all the the settings but on the preprogrammed automatic settings, I notice the color sometimes is off. I was recommended to get a 55mm ultraviolet cover to help with natural light but I often find the pics end up with a blue like tint. I love warm photos with natural light. I don't like using my flash. So I know I need to learn the manual settings.

All this being said:
Is there another lens that would be better for walking around then the ones that I already have? (FYI - i usually never use the zoom lens)

And in an attempt to learn this camera - is there online guides that you recommend or should we take a class?

Thanks!

False. A UV filter on a digital camera is basically just there to protect the front of the lens. During film days some films were sensitive to UV light, so the filters were used to protect against that. Now people use them because they are cheap and if you drop your camera and shatter the UV filter you are out $15 instead of the cost of the lens. There are several different types of filters that change the look of the shot, but a UV filter is not one of them.

You seem to be having issues with your white balance. Adjusting that will help you get the 'warm glow' or correct the blue tints you are seeing. If you are using a photo editing program then I would just leave the camera set to auto white balance and worry about it while editing. If you aren't, then it becomes more of a trial and error type of situation. Unless you get in to custom WB's, which is probably a little more advanced then you want to get now.

Generally speaking, the lens should not have much to do with the overall color of the photo. Once you get into the high end lenses, those will have slightly better color correction and contrast, but still not THAT much.

Experiment with your white balance and you should find that the tone of your photos dramatically improves. Also, look into getting an external flash. The pop-up flash on all DSLR's are horrid. Even a cheap, third party flash will give you much better results then the pop-up.

 

[ddbowdoin]

Unfortunately it takes a lot of effort and even worse, cash, to produce what you're looking for.

Basic gear is great for basic needs, that's a general rule of thumb. When situations start to become less than desirable the cost of required gear goes up. It's an expensive hobby to enter

 

[disneygirl76]

False. A UV filter on a digital camera is basically just there to protect the front of the lens. During film days some films were sensitive to UV light, so the filters were used to protect against that. Now people use them because they are cheap and if you drop your camera and shatter the UV filter you are out $15 instead of the cost of the lens. There are several different types of filters that change the look of the shot, but a UV filter is not one of them.

You seem to be having issues with your white balance. Adjusting that will help you get the 'warm glow' or correct the blue tints you are seeing. If you are using a photo editing program then I would just leave the camera set to auto white balance and worry about it while editing. If you aren't, then it becomes more of a trial and error type of situation. Unless you get in to custom WB's, which is probably a little more advanced then you want to get now.

Generally speaking, the lens should not have much to do with the overall color of the photo. Once you get into the high end lenses, those will have slightly better color correction and contrast, but still not THAT much.

Experiment with your white balance and you should find that the tone of your photos dramatically improves. Also, look into getting an external flash. The pop-up flash on all DSLR's are horrid. Even a cheap, third party flash will give you much better results then the pop-up.

How do I correct the white balance? Is that something that I could have accidentally changed?

 

[CP_alum08]

How do I correct the white balance? Is that something that I could have accidentally changed?

I'm not too familiar with the Canon menu (anyone else?) but usually it's pretty easy to get to. Somewhere in the same general area as the ISO maybe? Once you start moving up in bodies, they start having dedicated buttons for it, or a secondary button like my D90.

Check the manual!

 

[wdwmagic]

I'm not too familiar with the Canon menu (anyone else?) but usually it's pretty easy to get to. Somewhere in the same general area as the ISO maybe? Once you start moving up in bodies, they start having dedicated buttons for it, or a secondary button like my D90.

Check the manual!

It is typically on the main menu, under White Balance. The Canon auto white balance mode is AWB. That should work in 99% of cases.

 

[WDWFigment]

If you're looking to spend more money, I'd get a tripod. Honestly, you can get great night shots with the equipment you already have. It's just a matter of learning to use it.

I learned photography via Understanding Exposure along with an entry level Nikon, a tripod, wireless remote, and a kit lens. That is plenty.

 

[ddbowdoin]

don't worry about WB... shoot RAW and adjust in post.

 

[CP_alum08]

Personally I wouldn't recommend RAW to a beginner and the OP definitely seems like a beginner. RAW requires (basically) every shot to be edited and if the OP is a beginner to photography I think we can assume she is new to editing software was well. Photoshop has a pretty steep learning curve and can take months if not years to learn (I don't really think you are ever done learning photoshop, it's endless and anyone who thinks they have it mastered is a fool.) Obviously there are significant benefits to RAW, I'm not arguing that, but I think in the beginning it may be overwhelming.

And yes I know you can do batch edits in Bridge, actions in photoshop, etc. but it's still more than a JPEG requires.

 

[NowInc]

I know it seems extreme, but I always recommend lightroom to all types of photographers. Its pretty much my jack of all trades...its great for organizing and helps you get into good tagging habits, its a powerful photo editor (its not photoshop..but Its still great), it makes uploading to services such as picasa (google+), flickr, and facebook a breeze, AND its pretty reasonably priced. So in MY opinion, having a beginner dive into raw isn't as scary as it sounds with tools like lightroom (or aperture I guess).

I guess I could also mention Picasa..which is free and does a lot of functions similar to lightroom, I just don't feel it as user friendly.

 

[nngrendel]

I know it seems extreme, but I always recommend lightroom to all types of photographers. Its pretty much my jack of all trades...its great for organizing and helps you get into good tagging habits, its a powerful photo editor (its not photoshop..but Its still great), it makes uploading to services such as picasa (google+), flickr, and facebook a breeze, AND its pretty reasonably priced. So in MY opinion, having a beginner dive into raw isn't as scary as it sounds with tools like lightroom (or aperture I guess).

I guess I could also mention Picasa..which is free and does a lot of functions similar to lightroom, I just don't feel it as user friendly.

I have to agree with Lightroom. I had CS5 for quite some time and never thought I needed Lightroom. Purchased Lightroom 4 a few months back and I use it for over 90% of all my edits. The way you can tag and orginize your library though is awesome! I love it. Saves me tons of time and very easy to use.

Another problem with RAW with a beginner is they need to be prepared to deal with large files sizes. If your PC is not up to the task with processor speeds, amount of memory and Hard Drive storage space then RAW may not be your friend. If your also walking around with 4GB and 8GB cards then you will run out of space quickly. Shooting all week long in RAW will require lots of storage space.

For the record I love RAW and always shoot in RAW if I am taking shots for my enjoyment. However there is a learning curve to shooting in RAW.

 

[ddbowdoin]

Personally I wouldn't recommend RAW to a beginner and the OP definitely seems like a beginner. RAW requires (basically) every shot to be edited and if the OP is a beginner to photography I think we can assume she is new to editing software was well. Photoshop has a pretty steep learning curve and can take months if not years to learn (I don't really think you are ever done learning photoshop, it's endless and anyone who thinks they have it mastered is a fool.) Obviously there are significant benefits to RAW, I'm not arguing that, but I think in the beginning it may be overwhelming.

And yes I know you can do batch edits in Bridge, actions in photoshop, etc. but it's still more than a JPEG requires.

really though? it isn't THAT complicated. I think photoshop itself is a pain in the rear, but CameraRAW through CS5 is pretty easy. I mean, its all trial and error... just slide the bars and see what happens. It's all in front of you. Now the cost, well... mine is pirated (shhh, don't tell anyone).

 

[NowInc]

really though? it isn't THAT complicated. I think photoshop itself is a pain in the rear, but CameraRAW through CS5 is pretty easy. I mean, its all trial and error... just slide the bars and see what happens. It's all in front of you. Now the cost, well... mine is pirated (shhh, don't tell anyone).

With adobes new payment options, I feel there is zero excuse to pirate anymore. Its what? 20 bucks a month for photoshop? Well worth it.

 

[ddbowdoin]

With adobes new payment options, I feel there is zero excuse to pirate anymore. Its what? 20 bucks a month for photoshop? Well worth it.

I haven't seen the price structure now... but the total CS5 suite was about 2300 bucks.

 

[NowInc]

I haven't seen the price structure now... but the total CS5 suite was about 2300 bucks.

They have "monthly" payment options now..basically it breaks down like this:

http://www.adobe.com/products/creativesuite/cssubscription.html

So if you sign a year contract..its 20 bucks a month, if you go month-to-month, its 30 bucks a month. Which BOTH are very affordable and LEGAL. REALLY smart move on Adobe's part. Each "licence" is good for 2 computers (so for example your desktop and your laptop at the same time).

You can also do these type of plans for the entire master suite if you want. http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/buying-guide-membership.html (50 bucks a month for the entire suite plus cloud storage)

 

[ddbowdoin]

not bad... at the 20/month it would take about 4 years to break even with the retail price of CS5 coming in around 950 for the non-student version.