Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
The Sexy Shoot
Alicia and Holly decided to brave my lenses again and this time we kicked it up a notch!
As we descended on Marion, North Carolina we saw the town's glamour barometer start to rise and it was off to find some sweet spots for shooting. We started off inside an old train car located in the heart of town. Some lone tourist dude kept wandering into my backgrounds so we moved outside, shot up the exterior of the train and it was off to the crack house!
Actually it was an old, burned factory of some kind that we came across but my money is betting it's moonlit for nefarious crack activities at some point in it's history. The crime scene tape was already there. We weren't to be deterred.
I could have shot at the factory for hours but we wanted to get in some wet shots before we lost our light so from there we headed to Lake James.
Hopping the fence at Lake James after closing time seemed much less criminal after coming from a real crime scene. I've noticed park rangers never consider the sweet, late afternoon light when they establish their park hours.
This was a fun night! I've got a great job.
Holly got one of my cameras at some point and grabbed a few shots of yours truly.
We were starving after all the shooting. Here's our little group in the parking lot at Fatz Cafe.
As we descended on Marion, North Carolina we saw the town's glamour barometer start to rise and it was off to find some sweet spots for shooting. We started off inside an old train car located in the heart of town. Some lone tourist dude kept wandering into my backgrounds so we moved outside, shot up the exterior of the train and it was off to the crack house!
Actually it was an old, burned factory of some kind that we came across but my money is betting it's moonlit for nefarious crack activities at some point in it's history. The crime scene tape was already there. We weren't to be deterred.
I could have shot at the factory for hours but we wanted to get in some wet shots before we lost our light so from there we headed to Lake James.
Hopping the fence at Lake James after closing time seemed much less criminal after coming from a real crime scene. I've noticed park rangers never consider the sweet, late afternoon light when they establish their park hours.
This was a fun night! I've got a great job.
Holly got one of my cameras at some point and grabbed a few shots of yours truly.
We were starving after all the shooting. Here's our little group in the parking lot at Fatz Cafe.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Kati's Senior Shoot!
It was off to Tennessee this time to do some sweet senior shots!
Here's a handful of my favorites from the shoot and a little video clip I made on the way up.
I was messing with my iPhone trying to get directions to where I was headed and I was totally speeding. This cop was super cool - he was digging my '87 Civic (which is fantabulous) and he gave me directions and let me off with a warning! Donut's all around! My treat!
Here's a handful of my favorites from the shoot and a little video clip I made on the way up.
I was messing with my iPhone trying to get directions to where I was headed and I was totally speeding. This cop was super cool - he was digging my '87 Civic (which is fantabulous) and he gave me directions and let me off with a warning! Donut's all around! My treat!
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Boring with cheese - this is for Karl
I did a post back in January that a lot of people liked but they universally said it needed pictures. So this post may take the title for technical and geeky but at least there's pictures to ease the pain.
My friend Karl wrote and asked me some questions about cameras. There wound up being a lot of good information in our exchange so I decided make a post from it so those of you who aren't Karl could benefit from it as well :)
Here we go...
Karl -
I'd like to pick your brain about SLR digital cameras. I've been wanting to upgrade to an SLR digital camera for quite some time now, and I have about ~$800-1000 to spend, but no real good idea about what to buy.
We've really enjoyed our (not digital) 35 mm Canon EOS Rebel GII over the years. We got a (digital) Canon Powershot S2 IS a few years ago, and while it takes decent pictures, we desperately miss the SLR "looking through the lens" bit and feel that we miss many good pictures because of its delays and having to view an LCD screen.
An amateur photographer friend at work likes Nikons much better than Canons, and has recommended the Nikon D60 or D80. But I've been wondering about trying to get a Canon that would fit the lenses we already have for the EOS Rebel GII - but that might not be a worthwhile endeavor.
Me -
I don't know if you've had the chance to check out the blog much but I did a post back in January about cameras and lenses. A bit more about lenses I suppose. Anyway, you can check that out here: http://thezacthomasblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/my-most-boring-post.html
Hopefully that'll help a bit.
I shoot Nikon. Canon is just as good. Quality is great with both so don't let that be a concern.
Canon puts out more models than Nikon so I haven't really kept up with all of theirs. I know the rebel has gone through a few versions but, it always rates highly. My first digital SLR was a Nikon D50 and I'm still using it all the time. It's only 6 megapixels but, that's plenty. I took the shot of the Dr. Pepper can just for you - it's the 41,998th picture I've taken with the D50.
I also have a D80 - which is what I shot your family with, it just passed 71,000 pictures. And I picked up a D200 the other day on eBay. (EDIT - I now have a D2X as well) The benefit you get, primarily, with more expensive cameras is speed and access. They take pictures faster and all the controls become buttons on the outside instead of menus buried on the inside. The D50 still takes 3 frames per second, fast enough for most people.
My main focus has been on getting the best lenses I can. The lens is what makes the picture - the camera just records it. Once you have a nice, fast lens for your camera - you're good to go. A great lens will be a great lens on any camera - a crappy lens... same thing.
If you've got great canon lenses then definitely stick with Canon and buy a better body. If you decide to plunk your cash down on a nice lens and a body then go with either a Canon or Nikon (they're the two best and it keeps your choices simpler) and then just read a few reviews, play with them at a camera store and go with what feels good. The difference between a point-n-shoot digital camera to even the cheapest digital SLR is huge in terms of speed and quality so you're going to be happy regardless.
Here's a review of the D60
and a review of the newest rebel.
The lens I always break out for shooting families is my Tamron 17-50mm f2.8
Karl -
Wow! What helpful information. Between your email and the blog, I feel like I have a MUCH better understanding of what to prioritize, plus you made me feel at ease about sticking with Canon.
I'm very interested in being able to take portraits like you did of us with the very narrow depth of field, so I understand the smaller aperture is key there...
HOWEVER, we also love taking pictures of the outdoors. What type of lens would I want for shooting the wide open spaces? Would the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 be useful? Or the Canon 50mm f1.8 prime lens you mentioned in the blog? Or would the typical 18-55mm f/3.5-?? lenses that comes with most Canon DSLR's be better? Or do I just need to think about a wide-angle, and does aperture matter with wide-angle lenses for landscapes?
Me -
You're good to go with Canon - absolutely. I'm a Nikon die-hard but it's the same as Honda's and Toyota's; you can argue the merits of both for hours but, at the end of the day you're still glad you're not in a Ford.
You're right about the depth-of-field relating to aperture as well - the smaller the f-stop number (the larger aperture hole) the smaller the depth-of-field. That's great for portraits and it's only amplified the more you zoom and/or the closer you are to your subject
A couple of examples:
- the shot of my cat was with the Tamron 17-50 lens at 2.8 and the zoom at 20mm - the wide end. The depth of field is quite shallow because I was literally in his face - his whiskers were touching the lens.
- the shot of Vahn in the kitchen was exactly the same settings (as far as we're concerned with the lens) and it's a much wider depth of field because I was a few feet from him.
- the shot of Gryphyn's under-appreciated hug - same settings. I wanted an excuse to put this one on the blog as well :) I love my Men!
On the other end of the zoom range with the same lens:
- The shot of our friend's son Isaac was also with the 17-50 lens at 2.8 but zoomed to the max at 50mm. Isaac is a pretty normal boy from all outside appearances so you know the distance between his forehead and eyes and then to his ears is not abnormally skewed. But you literally have millimeters of focus on his eyes before it goes soft either towards or away from the camera.
- Then there's the shot of my friend Dan in San Francisco last week. Again, the same 50mm setting with the same lens but he's completely in focus and the background gradually goes soft because of my distance from him.
So, when you're going for sweet depth of field - 2.8 isn't a catch-all, you also have to keep in mind your distance to your subject.
However 2.8 is also hugely better for taking pictures without a dependance on flash. None of these shots are with a flash.
But you mentioned that you wanted to take pictures of the wide open space in the great outdoors as well.
You will usually want a wide angle lens for this type of photography - just like the 17-50mm we've been talking about. The difference is that you will use your aperture (f-stop) at the other end of it's range - typically f-22 or f-32 - a much smaller physical opening for the light to get through. The lens that came with your camera no doubt goes down this far so you can get away with using it. If it's zoom range is wide enough for what you want then great. I like having as many options as possible in one lens that's why I choose to sport the 17-50 2.8.
At this point we need to talk about exposure for just a minute. Exposure is simply the correct amount of light making it to the sensor (or film) in your camera. Too much light - the shot's too bright, too little light the shot's too dark. Two things effect this: your APERTURE & your SHUTTER.
The APERTURE, as we've discussed, is the variable sized hole inside your lens that lets light through - like the pupil of your eye.
The SHUTTER is the curtain in front of your sensor that moves to let the light hit the sensor and back again to block it.
The Aperture can change it's size and the shutter can change it's speed - those two variables determine if you nail your exposure or if it was a learning experience.
You can delve much deeper at this site if you like: http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Exposure/Aperture_01.htm
Let's relate it to something different to grasp it.
For this little example a full bucket of water will be a correct exposure.
You can fill a bucket quickly or slowly - either way it's a full bucket.
Suppose you want to fill the bucket as quickly as possible - this would be a good time to break out your firehose we'll call f-2.8. You pull out f-2.8 and a split second later you've got a full bucket - a correct exposure.
Conversely, you've got all day to fill your bucket, which is good because you have a slow garden hose named f-22. You don't want to hold that hose for 5 minutes so you stick it on a tripod. 5 minutes later you have a full bucket - a correct exposure.
How long you need to leave the valve open is directly related to how big the hose is you're using. How long your shutter stays open is directly related to the size aperture you're using.
With outdoor shots of the wide open spaces you usually want everything in focus - like an Ansel Adams picture - so you can stare at it in it's magnificence and study it's detail. This is done with a smaller aperture.
When you stop down your lens (lower the aperture) you gradually increase your depth of field.
So here's a few more shots of outdoors type stuff.
Most of my nature work has been shot on film so I didn't have a lot to pull from on my computer for this post. You may have already seen these on my main webpage. They'll give you an idea of what's possible with small to mid-range aperture settings.
- This blue shot was of a loch in Scotland. I noticed the scene as I was driving by so I hopped out and set up my camera on a rock since I didn't have a tripod with me. My lens was at 18mm focal length (zoom) f-14 and a shutter speed of 25 seconds.
- This sunken boat was in another Scottish loch. It was bright enough outside to go without a tripod. This was 48mm at f-5 and 1/100th of a second.
- Here's a shot from the Blue Ridge Parkway facing towards Lake Julienne just south of Asheville. I got up while it was still dark outside to make sure I was in place to get the sun cresting over the mountains. Here I'm at 29mm, f-11 and 1/20th of a second - on a tripod.
- Fireworks can be fun to shoot. These were during the 4th of July show also at Lake Julienne. I set up on a tripod and shot in Manual mode. I picked a middle of the road aperture of f-9. I watched a few of the fireworks go off through my camera and focused in that area and then left the autofocus off. I zoomed out pretty wide to 24mm because you don't know exactly where the burst will be (I cropped it later). And then how long the shutter is open determines how much of the trails of light you capture - I went with 4 seconds here.
That's light and physics - my degrees are in auto and diesel technology so I won't attempt to break it down any further :) I've just learned that's how it works and I run with it.
So, worth the read?
hello...
hello...
Hmm... I guess everyone jumped over to myspace.
My friend Karl wrote and asked me some questions about cameras. There wound up being a lot of good information in our exchange so I decided make a post from it so those of you who aren't Karl could benefit from it as well :)
Here we go...
Karl -
I'd like to pick your brain about SLR digital cameras. I've been wanting to upgrade to an SLR digital camera for quite some time now, and I have about ~$800-1000 to spend, but no real good idea about what to buy.
We've really enjoyed our (not digital) 35 mm Canon EOS Rebel GII over the years. We got a (digital) Canon Powershot S2 IS a few years ago, and while it takes decent pictures, we desperately miss the SLR "looking through the lens" bit and feel that we miss many good pictures because of its delays and having to view an LCD screen.
An amateur photographer friend at work likes Nikons much better than Canons, and has recommended the Nikon D60 or D80. But I've been wondering about trying to get a Canon that would fit the lenses we already have for the EOS Rebel GII - but that might not be a worthwhile endeavor.
Me -
I don't know if you've had the chance to check out the blog much but I did a post back in January about cameras and lenses. A bit more about lenses I suppose. Anyway, you can check that out here: http://thezacthomasblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/my-most-boring-post.html
Hopefully that'll help a bit.
I shoot Nikon. Canon is just as good. Quality is great with both so don't let that be a concern.
Canon puts out more models than Nikon so I haven't really kept up with all of theirs. I know the rebel has gone through a few versions but, it always rates highly. My first digital SLR was a Nikon D50 and I'm still using it all the time. It's only 6 megapixels but, that's plenty. I took the shot of the Dr. Pepper can just for you - it's the 41,998th picture I've taken with the D50.
I also have a D80 - which is what I shot your family with, it just passed 71,000 pictures. And I picked up a D200 the other day on eBay. (EDIT - I now have a D2X as well) The benefit you get, primarily, with more expensive cameras is speed and access. They take pictures faster and all the controls become buttons on the outside instead of menus buried on the inside. The D50 still takes 3 frames per second, fast enough for most people.
My main focus has been on getting the best lenses I can. The lens is what makes the picture - the camera just records it. Once you have a nice, fast lens for your camera - you're good to go. A great lens will be a great lens on any camera - a crappy lens... same thing.
If you've got great canon lenses then definitely stick with Canon and buy a better body. If you decide to plunk your cash down on a nice lens and a body then go with either a Canon or Nikon (they're the two best and it keeps your choices simpler) and then just read a few reviews, play with them at a camera store and go with what feels good. The difference between a point-n-shoot digital camera to even the cheapest digital SLR is huge in terms of speed and quality so you're going to be happy regardless.
Here's a review of the D60
and a review of the newest rebel.
The lens I always break out for shooting families is my Tamron 17-50mm f2.8
Karl -
Wow! What helpful information. Between your email and the blog, I feel like I have a MUCH better understanding of what to prioritize, plus you made me feel at ease about sticking with Canon.
I'm very interested in being able to take portraits like you did of us with the very narrow depth of field, so I understand the smaller aperture is key there...
HOWEVER, we also love taking pictures of the outdoors. What type of lens would I want for shooting the wide open spaces? Would the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 be useful? Or the Canon 50mm f1.8 prime lens you mentioned in the blog? Or would the typical 18-55mm f/3.5-?? lenses that comes with most Canon DSLR's be better? Or do I just need to think about a wide-angle, and does aperture matter with wide-angle lenses for landscapes?
Me -
You're good to go with Canon - absolutely. I'm a Nikon die-hard but it's the same as Honda's and Toyota's; you can argue the merits of both for hours but, at the end of the day you're still glad you're not in a Ford.
You're right about the depth-of-field relating to aperture as well - the smaller the f-stop number (the larger aperture hole) the smaller the depth-of-field. That's great for portraits and it's only amplified the more you zoom and/or the closer you are to your subject
A couple of examples:
- the shot of my cat was with the Tamron 17-50 lens at 2.8 and the zoom at 20mm - the wide end. The depth of field is quite shallow because I was literally in his face - his whiskers were touching the lens.
- the shot of Vahn in the kitchen was exactly the same settings (as far as we're concerned with the lens) and it's a much wider depth of field because I was a few feet from him.
- the shot of Gryphyn's under-appreciated hug - same settings. I wanted an excuse to put this one on the blog as well :) I love my Men!
On the other end of the zoom range with the same lens:
- The shot of our friend's son Isaac was also with the 17-50 lens at 2.8 but zoomed to the max at 50mm. Isaac is a pretty normal boy from all outside appearances so you know the distance between his forehead and eyes and then to his ears is not abnormally skewed. But you literally have millimeters of focus on his eyes before it goes soft either towards or away from the camera.
- Then there's the shot of my friend Dan in San Francisco last week. Again, the same 50mm setting with the same lens but he's completely in focus and the background gradually goes soft because of my distance from him.
So, when you're going for sweet depth of field - 2.8 isn't a catch-all, you also have to keep in mind your distance to your subject.
However 2.8 is also hugely better for taking pictures without a dependance on flash. None of these shots are with a flash.
But you mentioned that you wanted to take pictures of the wide open space in the great outdoors as well.
You will usually want a wide angle lens for this type of photography - just like the 17-50mm we've been talking about. The difference is that you will use your aperture (f-stop) at the other end of it's range - typically f-22 or f-32 - a much smaller physical opening for the light to get through. The lens that came with your camera no doubt goes down this far so you can get away with using it. If it's zoom range is wide enough for what you want then great. I like having as many options as possible in one lens that's why I choose to sport the 17-50 2.8.
At this point we need to talk about exposure for just a minute. Exposure is simply the correct amount of light making it to the sensor (or film) in your camera. Too much light - the shot's too bright, too little light the shot's too dark. Two things effect this: your APERTURE & your SHUTTER.
The APERTURE, as we've discussed, is the variable sized hole inside your lens that lets light through - like the pupil of your eye.
The SHUTTER is the curtain in front of your sensor that moves to let the light hit the sensor and back again to block it.
The Aperture can change it's size and the shutter can change it's speed - those two variables determine if you nail your exposure or if it was a learning experience.
You can delve much deeper at this site if you like: http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Exposure/Aperture_01.htm
Let's relate it to something different to grasp it.
For this little example a full bucket of water will be a correct exposure.
You can fill a bucket quickly or slowly - either way it's a full bucket.
Suppose you want to fill the bucket as quickly as possible - this would be a good time to break out your firehose we'll call f-2.8. You pull out f-2.8 and a split second later you've got a full bucket - a correct exposure.
Conversely, you've got all day to fill your bucket, which is good because you have a slow garden hose named f-22. You don't want to hold that hose for 5 minutes so you stick it on a tripod. 5 minutes later you have a full bucket - a correct exposure.
How long you need to leave the valve open is directly related to how big the hose is you're using. How long your shutter stays open is directly related to the size aperture you're using.
With outdoor shots of the wide open spaces you usually want everything in focus - like an Ansel Adams picture - so you can stare at it in it's magnificence and study it's detail. This is done with a smaller aperture.
When you stop down your lens (lower the aperture) you gradually increase your depth of field.
So here's a few more shots of outdoors type stuff.
Most of my nature work has been shot on film so I didn't have a lot to pull from on my computer for this post. You may have already seen these on my main webpage. They'll give you an idea of what's possible with small to mid-range aperture settings.
- This blue shot was of a loch in Scotland. I noticed the scene as I was driving by so I hopped out and set up my camera on a rock since I didn't have a tripod with me. My lens was at 18mm focal length (zoom) f-14 and a shutter speed of 25 seconds.
- This sunken boat was in another Scottish loch. It was bright enough outside to go without a tripod. This was 48mm at f-5 and 1/100th of a second.
- Here's a shot from the Blue Ridge Parkway facing towards Lake Julienne just south of Asheville. I got up while it was still dark outside to make sure I was in place to get the sun cresting over the mountains. Here I'm at 29mm, f-11 and 1/20th of a second - on a tripod.
- Fireworks can be fun to shoot. These were during the 4th of July show also at Lake Julienne. I set up on a tripod and shot in Manual mode. I picked a middle of the road aperture of f-9. I watched a few of the fireworks go off through my camera and focused in that area and then left the autofocus off. I zoomed out pretty wide to 24mm because you don't know exactly where the burst will be (I cropped it later). And then how long the shutter is open determines how much of the trails of light you capture - I went with 4 seconds here.
That's light and physics - my degrees are in auto and diesel technology so I won't attempt to break it down any further :) I've just learned that's how it works and I run with it.
So, worth the read?
hello...
hello...
Hmm... I guess everyone jumped over to myspace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
