topic Re: Where to start? in EOS DSLR & Mirrorless Cameras

Where to start?

inkjunkie — Thu, 12 Oct 2017 16:47:25 GMT

Have been a casual, perhaps hobbyist, shutterbug for a long time. Never put much effort into learning much of anything beyond full auto point and shoot. Been messing around with some of the manual settings...and having a lot more fun. Decided I wanted to buy editing software. Contacted Corel, was told that After Shot Pro 3 was compatible with my T7I...it wasn't. Bought Lightroom. Just as in the past I feel very overwhelmed....biting off more than I can chew.

Unlike the past I am not going to pack the camera away and forget about it. Looking for advice on educating myself. Right from the beginning...say a photography for dummies type of thing lol...

Ok...perhaps not THAT entry level.

Any suggestions?

Re: Where to start?

RobertTheFat — Thu, 12 Oct 2017 17:43:43 GMT

@inkjunkie wrote:
Have been a casual, perhaps hobbyist, shutterbug for a long time. Never put much effort into learning much of anything beyond full auto point and shoot. Been messing around with some of the manual settings...and having a lot more fun. Decided I wanted to buy editing software. Contacted Corel, was told that After Shot Pro 3 was compatible with my T7I...it wasn't. Bought Lightroom. Just as in the past I feel very overwhelmed....biting off more than I can chew.
Unlike the past I am not going to pack the camera away and forget about it. Looking for advice on educating myself. Right from the beginning...say a photography for dummies type of thing lol...
Ok...perhaps not THAT entry level.
Any suggestions?

Canon's editor, Digital PHoto Professional, came with your camera. It you've misplaced the CD, you can download it from their Web site. If you have a 64-bit processor, start with Version 4. You may be asked for your camera's serial number, so have it handy.

Re: Where to start?

Waddizzle — Thu, 12 Oct 2017 22:10:28 GMT

Where to begin? Always save your shots as RAW, which is the digital equivalent of a film negative. Saving your shots as JPEG files would be equivalent to shooting with an old Polaroid Instantamatic, which would eject a print after every shot, and no film negative would be created..

Using Canon’s DPP is a pretty good introduction to digital post processing. Lightroom can be overwhelming for some who are just starting out.

Re: Where to start?

diverhank — Fri, 13 Oct 2017 00:08:33 GMT

@inkjunkie wrote:

Unlike the past I am not going to pack the camera away and forget about it. Looking for advice on educating myself. Right from the beginning...say a photography for dummies type of thing lol...
Ok...perhaps not THAT entry level.
Any suggestions?

Where to start? Your question is quite encompassing...there are too many options out there. My 4 options are:

1. The best I think is paid lessons (online and/or college). Not all can afford it or willing to pay.

2. Just as good or even better is to join a photography club that also offers lessons for members at a nominal fee.

3. Youtube has lots of how to videos...while some are not so good, most materials, I find, are excellent.

4. Go to the library to check out photography books and start reading. When I run into a book I really like, I'd buy one for myself from a store or from Amazon

I have done all 4 of the above so I recommend that you do the same. Option # 2 is imho the best option but even that alone is not enough. Learning is one thing but you have to be doing also...so for each lesson, you have to go out and take pictures. I like option 2 and option 1 best because you will get feedbacks on your photos...some instructors are brutally honest and try to tear your work apart figuratively. Check your pride at the door and learn...that's how you will improve. I've seen a few thin-skinned students who got mad and quit - big loss on their part. Method 3 and 4 lack a feedback mechanism and should be used as supplemental means only.

Re: Where to start?

inkjunkie — Fri, 13 Oct 2017 00:45:31 GMT

Few years back, right around the time I was looking to move up from one of the first, if not the first Digital Rebel I was talking with someone on a car site I am friends with. We live about 2 hours from each other, we would occasionally meet for lunch. He had several 40D bodies. Ended up not buying one from him, but did buy a 40D. This "know it all" was trying to walk me thru the basics of manual shooting. His claim was that there was no reason to shoot in RAW format because editing is a pain in the butt and that "nobody can process a picture better than the camera." I mentioned that it was fairly common for me to shoot over/under exposed images....that editing, as I understood things, was a necessary evil when shooting in any of the manual modes. We had a very heated discussion...haven't spoke with him since.

I have been messing around with Lightroom some...pretty sure I will be able to figure it out.

Re: Where to start?

ebiggs1 — Fri, 13 Oct 2017 13:42:53 GMT

OK now the facts.

Lightroom is better than DPP4. You will end up with LR if you are serious about your shutterbug hobby anyway so why not just start there?

Contrary to your 'lunch friend', all the great photos you admire are post edited. Got that, all of them. Not absolutely mandatory but most of them were shot in Raw format, too.

Youtube is simply a crutch. The best way is to learn face to face from somebody. Not that it can't be done, it is faster and you get more out of it quicker. Whether it is in a club or a community college, friend, etc, face to face is best. Next is an on-line course. My favorite is Ben Wilmore's course. Google him. Well worth the price.

Next you need to forget the green square full auto mode exists. Put a small piece of black tape over it ! If you require a more auto mode for some reason, use P mode. It allows you lock down some critical settings.

Two setting choices that are your biggest friends are Tv and Av. Learn them.

And, what lenses do you have. You may need to evaluate that area too. A Rebel T7i is a great camera and can take you far.

Re: Where to start?

inkjunkie — Fri, 13 Oct 2017 14:59:06 GMT

Face to face classes are tough for me, I am disabled, bipolar mixed severe with psychotic tendencies...least bit of stress and I black out and become violent.
Right now I only have the lens that came with the camera, EDS 18-135mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS STM. ONLY other ones were kit lenses from my other purchases. The 100-300 I have is done for...pictures are very hazy.. have 3 short lenses as well...they are packed away with the 40D in the garage.
I am planning on buying the 100-400 L lens here soon. Owner of the local drag strip has asked me to take pictures next year. Realize this lens is a bit much but being disabled my pockets aren't as deep as they once were. Is either going to be for 100-400 or the 28-300F/3.5-5.6L IS I AM, which based upon my very limited knowledge seems like it may be very close to being the only lens I need.
I will look into Ben Wilmore.
Any input on my lenses choice would be greatly appreciated. Will be shooting at the drag strip, visiting some botanical gardens and taking shots of my dogs, landscaping etc.
Thank you for your time...

Re: Where to start?

TCampbell — Fri, 13 Oct 2017 15:08:09 GMT

A few good books are:

1) Understanding Exposure by Bryan Peterson

2) As an alternative to #1, some people prefer The Digital Photography Book, Part 1 (it's a series and I think it's now up to 5 books) by Scott Kelby.

3) The Photographer's Eye: Composition & Design for Better Digital Photography by Michael Freeman

4) Speedliter's Handbook by Syl Arena (this book is very good, but is specific to understanding the Canon ETTL system -- though it does have many good tips on effective use of flash photography... it is nuanced toward Canon's system.)

5) Light Science & Magic: An Introduction to Photographic Lighting by Fil Hunter, Steven Bifer, and Paul Fuqua

#1 and #2 are very commonly recommended to new photographers as they teach the basics in plain language that doesn't require special expertise or previous experience to understand. It isn't just collecting the right amount of light for the exposure... but how your camera collects it that will influence the result (will you have a tack-sharp subject with a blurred background? Will you have relatively sharp focus of everything in the image? Will you freeze action to a moment in time? Will you deliberately blur action to imply motion in the shot? Etc. and how to know which approach to take to get the creative results you want.

The Scott Kelby book (#2 on the list) is an alternative... some people prefer the way one author writes vs. the other. But the Scott Kelby book is the first in a long series.

I always recommend #3 ... once you understand the basics (in #1 or #2). This book doesn't tell you how to adjust camera settings... it teaches you how to recognize elements in the scene that make for good photography.

#4 and #5 are both about use of flash. Good lighting has a huge influence on your images. These books teach you how to control the flash for much better light, get the flash off the camera so that you can not only control the highlights, but also the use of shadows. Lighting probably wields more influence over the look of an image than the choice of lenses.

So back to post processing software...

Lightroom is the most popular software used (by far). But what's probably stumping you is that you aren't sure what to do when you open Lightroom. You probably want to watch some tutorial videos.

Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP) comes with your camera (it's free to you) and it's designed to let you adjust your RAW images (you could adjust any image, but it's optimized to deal with Canon's RAW files). But you do edit these files one at a time.

Lightroom is not just a RAW processing program... it's also a Digital Asset Manager (DAM) program. If you do a lot of shooting and you aren't organized, you may have photos all over your hard drive and you might struggle to find them. Lightroom starts with it's "Library" module which controls how it imports and stores the original files and allows you to sort them into "collections" (think of collections like a photo album for a theme or event, etc.) For example, I professional wedding photographer probably has a "collection" for each wedding or each client. I have some common locations that I like to go to shoot so I have "collections" for those locations (each time I go to that same location I typically add the images to the same collection). It also allows you to do keywording of your images to make it possible to search them quickly. It lets you rank your images. So you can do searches such as finding all the shots taken with a particular camera & lens that you ranked 5 stars and are portrait shots. When you have tens of thousands of images... being able to do fast searches is really handy.

It's also a RAW workflow and image adjustment program.

When you shoot an image using JPEG, the camera does a lot of processing on that image (in the camera) before it saves the image to the memory card. A JPEG typically gets "white balance" applied (to deal with the color cast of the light); some de-noising probably occurs if you shot at high ISO; some sharpening probably occurs around edges; a color style is applied, etc.

When you shoot using RAW, none of this happens (even though most images need some adjustment). But JPEG is a "lossy" storage type which means subtle differences from pixel to pixel will be dropped to make the image compress better for storage. If you then later try to adjust the image, you usually find that some detail was lost in the compression (and you can't recover it -- hence the name "lossy"). RAW images don't discard or adjust data - you get everything the sensor saw.

Programs like DPP and Lightroom let you apply all those things that JPEG would have applied automatically... but since RAW isn't "lossy", it is VASTLY better for post processing / adjustment. You can recover far more detail in your images as you work on them.

So your question about "where to start" is answered by two things... (1) is probably some tutorials in how to use lightroom ... but the other thing to learn is (2) what are all the common adjustment types and why would you use them?

The answer to #2 is that once you take a photo, it will look a LOT better once you process it (take it through the post-processing workflow).

Here's an example:

This is a before/after comparison... the 'before' is basically how it came out of the camera. You can see it's a bit washed out, there's some clutter on the left side of the frame... I cropped it, I adjusted the "white balance" (it looks a bit cold with a slight 'blue' color cast based on the clouds), I checked and adjusted the 'white' and 'black' points in the image to improve contrast. I adjusted the tone-curve for the image which further 'stretches' the contrast (instead of this image having an fairly flat gray-ish look... you can see the output is a bit more dramatic with both brighter and darker areas instead of mostly just middle-gray areas). Some sharpening was applied (which you probably can't see in this tiny sizes but do show up in a full size image) and there's even a bit of vignette adjustment do darken the outer areas of the frame and bring attention toward the center.

Anyway... this is the general idea of what is meant by "post processing" ... you're taking your original data and tweaking it to get a result more to your liking. If you try to do this with a JPEG image, you'll find lots of issues because JPEG scrapped lots of original data. This is why most serious photographers shoot RAW.

Programs like Photoshop can do this (but Lightroom is faster at THIS type of editing) but Photoshop will let you go beyond reality... you can insert elements into a photo that weren't really there (e.g. add some people, remove something from the background, etc.) Photoshop will let you apply effects (create blur where something wasn't really blurred, etc.) Photoshop lets you do the sorts of things a graphic artist might do (beyond photography.)

I do use Photoshop... but only very rarely ... probably more than 98% of what I do with photos can be handled with Lightroom.

One of the other cool things about Lightroom is that if you take a lot of images in the same lighting with the same camera, etc. then there are probably a lot of adjustments that should be made to the entire set of images. In Lightroom you can "sync" your adjustments... adjust one image ... then select a range of images and tell it to "sync". Lightroom will open a panel showing check-boxes for each adjustment type (e.g. "white balance" would be one checkbox). You can decide which kinds of adjustments you want to sync and when you perform this, those edits will be applied to EVERY image in the range you selected... this really speeds things along when you are working with a lot of images.

Re: Where to start?

inkjunkie — Fri, 13 Oct 2017 15:04:58 GMT

Should have stated that I am trying to avoid buying several lenses, don't see the point of buying a less expensive zoom lenses only to move up to the better lenses when my skill improves...if that makes sense..,

Re: Where to start?

RobertTheFat — Fri, 13 Oct 2017 15:21:06 GMT

@inkjunkie wrote:
Should have stated that I am trying to avoid buying several lenses, don't see the point of buying a less expensive zoom lenses only to move up to the better lenses when my skill improves...if that makes sense..,

It does, but remember that lenses are being constantly improved, so there's a case to be made for not buying a particular lens until you're sure you need it. And as your skills improve, you'll be better able to assess what you need and more confident of your judgement. When we advise you, we're seeing your situation through our eyes and based on our own experiences. There will come a time when your judgement of your requirements is better than ours.

Re: Where to start?

TCampbell — Fri, 13 Oct 2017 15:43:53 GMT

@inkjunkie wrote:
Should have stated that I am trying to avoid buying several lenses, don't see the point of buying a less expensive zoom lenses only to move up to the better lenses when my skill improves...if that makes sense..,

Part of the point of having a "removeable lens" camera is that there is no single "best" lens... one lens might be better for a certain job than other.

Changes lenses changes a few things...

First and foremost is the "angle of view" and how this influences a photo. A newbie assumption is that a zoom lens will let you stand in one spot ... and then zoom-in to "get closer" and zoom-out to "get farther".

A serious photographer usually wont do this (there are several noteable exceptions). If they want to get closer, they actually walk closer (assuming they can - sometimes you are constrained as to where you can stand -- but if they have control over where they stand... they stand where they need to stand and don't use the lens as an excuse to avoid exercise.)

So the REAL point of the zoom is to change the angle of view. When you go a short focal length lens (wide angle of view), it has the effect of "stretching" the depth of the scene (distant objects seem even more distant) but proportional to the distance form the lens. So close things still seem close, but far things seem much much farther away. Realty photography uses this to make room interiors seem bigger. Car photographers use this to make car interiors seem roomier or if I take a shot down the side of the car, the car seems longer, etc. Narrow angle of view (long focal lengths) have the opposite effect and they "compress" the image.

But another side effect of focal length is that it is one of three major factors which influence the "depth of field" (how much of the image seems to be in focus vs. out of focus).

I mentioned some noteable exceptions to moving closer/farther instead of zooming... sometimes even if you can get closer, it's not a good idea. If you're shooting wildlife, getting close may scare them away (or put you in danger depending on the wildlife.)

So if I'm taking a portrait shot... I could get really really close to my subject with a very wide angle lens... OR I could get much farther away with a narrow angle lens. Overall I can position the camera so I frame about the same amount of subject in the shot (by standing closer or farther) but in the case of a portrait, the shots will tend to look better (a lot better) if I stand farther back and use a longer lens then they will if I stand very close and use a short/wide lens. In other words you'll start to envisiion what you want the shot to look like and then select the lens that can achieve the results you want.

One other thing... "low" focal ratio lenses collect more light relative to their focal length. That means they can take shots in less light, using a lower ISO setting (less noise) or use a faster shutter speed. The focal ratio also influence the depth of field ... so you can generate more background blur (which can help make your subject stand out) ... generally if you can afford the lower focal ratio lenses, they offer many advantages.

A 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom lens is a much better than say a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 lens (even though you might be thinking "hey... what about that extra 100mm worth of zoom range?" -- but overal quality of the images from the f/2.8 lens will almost certainly provide vastly more usefulness than the extra zoom range.

The shot in my post above (taken during a civil war re-enactment event) was shot using a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens AT f/2.8 and 200mm. If you had a 70-300mm lens and tried to frame this at the same 200mm focal length, you'd have to shoot it at f/5.6 (two stops slower and you'd lose the shallow depth of field) ... this would result in a loss of blur in both the background and the foreground (both of which I really wanted for this shot). In other words, I wouldn't have been able to make this shot with the 70-300mm f/4-5.6 lens ... it's not just about the focal length range... it's also about the focal ratio.

If I owed a T7i and I wanted to own just two lenses ... but could have any two I wanted (regardless of price) I'd pick:

#1 the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

#2 the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II

I might select other lenses ... depending on a special need or type of photography (for example, neither of these are macro lenses).

Your T7i probably came with an EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM lens. That's a good lens... but keep in mind it's primarily designed for affordability (to keep the entry price of buying the camera with a general purpose lens to a reasonable price tag.) That lens doesn't have a particualr low focal ratio lens.

Low focal ratio lenses (parituclarly in zooms) cost more for several reasons.

The "focal ratio" is the ratio of lens' effective focal length compared to the diameter of it's effective aperture opening (at max aperture). So if a lens has a focal length of 100mm but it's maximum effective clear aperture opening size (the area through which the light can pass) is 25mm then that lens is an "f/4" lens because 100 ÷ 25 = 4. If that lens had a significantly bigger diameter but wasn't actually any longer ... so now suppose it's effective clear aperture is 50mm across, then 100 ÷ 50 = 2 so that would be an "f/2" lens (notice how the lower the focal ratio... the bigger the area is through which the light can pass.

But while getting more light is generally better... it complicates things for the optical system. A single object lens element has a convex shape (thick in the middle and thin on the edges) and that area at the edge acts like a prism ... so now "white" light is split into a rainbow spectrum (very bad for quality photos). This is property of the lens and it's "glass" called "dispersion" and it creates an effect we call "chromatic aberration" or "CA" for short.

To combat this CA problem, the lens makers add extra lens elemements which are typically concave on the front side but nearly flat on the back side, etc.

Anyway, a smaller lens doesn't have a strong of a curve so the extent of the CA problem (and how much is needed to correct for it) is less.

The bigger lenses (where traditional optical glass dispersion would be too great) might use an exoctic "glass" such as florite crystal. Florite crystal is found in nature and it has naturally low dispersion (so it's a better "glass") but not in big enough or pure enough pieces to make lenses. But fortunately crystals can be "grown" in a kiln. Unfortunately if you try to grow them too quickly, it'll create lots of optical flaws which make them worthless... so they have to be grown very slowly. This process can take months to produce a single batch which is suitable in quality to grind into lenses.

So basically as you get to these lower focal ratio lenses, the lens diameter is physically larger, the glass elements are all bigger, thicker, and heavier, they also have to do more to correct for optical issues, and they may have to use exoctic elements to make the "glass" using very expensive processes that cannot be rushed. And of course since it costs a lot more... fewer people can afford them (which reduces the economy of scale).

So when you look at high quality low focal ratio lenses... just be prepared for the sticker shock when you check the price tag. They're not being greedy... it really is more expensive (a lot more expensive) to make those lenses.

Re: Where to start?

ebiggs1 — Sat, 14 Oct 2017 15:27:05 GMT

"... don't see the point of buying a less expensive zoom lenses only to move up to the better lenses when my skill improves..."

I suppose there is logic to that. Big zoom lenses and all-in-one lenses are the poorest on the IQ scale there is. Keep that in mind. It is far better to have two or three lenses than one lens that covers the same range. Plus all-in-one zooms thend to be slow and variable aperture types. Again not a plus.

I would limit yourself to one of these...

EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM (the white one, not the black one)

EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM (new version is better)

Tamron SP 150-600mm f/5-6.3 Di VC USD G2 for Canon (G2 model)

...and if you insist on that everything lens get this one...

EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM (white one)

Still the bottom line and where the rubber meets to road, I mean dragstrip, is post editing. You must learn how! Not a choice if you want the best.

Re: Where to start?

Waddizzle — Sat, 14 Oct 2017 20:14:39 GMT

@inkjunkie wrote:
Should have stated that I am trying to avoid buying several lenses, don't see the point of buying a less expensive zoom lenses only to move up to the better lenses when my skill improves...if that makes sense..,

You have already stated that Lightroom was a bit over whelming, so use Canon’s DPP for a week, or a thousand photos, so that you can wrap your head around the basic concepts and terminology associated with photo post processing.

LENSES. You mentioned an interest in a all-in-one zoom, I forget the model, that ranged from wide angle to near super telephoto. Those lenses are great for lesser cameras, Your T7i will mercilessly reveal the design compromises that have to made to achieve a 10:1 zoom range. The best zooms have a zoom range of 4:1, or less.

Which brings up the next issue to consider. You seemed to indicate that you have an EF-S 18-135mm lens. Those are pretty good lenses for walking around like a tourist. But, do you need a zooom that duplicates the short end of that range? Your choice of the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L is a good one for action photography. Don’t invest in an extender, though, because I suspect that your images will beccome either to noisy, due to a high shutter speed, or to blurry due to too slow of a shutter speed..

The only problem that I see with the 100-400 is that you would not have a FAST lens. A fast lens will be very useful on those overcast days, or even shooting at twilight, or even at night. For that reason, I would suggest the same EF 70-200 f/2.8L II IS USM that time Tim suggested. You can get the 100-400 at a later date. You could even use a 1.4x III extender with it. But, not the 2.0x III with your T7i., which I think would be a bad match for the same reasons I listed above.

Also, when you use an extender, you loose AF points. I think your T7i would still have 27 available AF points, arranged as three rows of nine, but your ISO would have to be set too high for you use faster shutter speeds. I think the constant f/2.8 zoom and a 1.4x III extender is as far as you want to go, and stick with a Canon extender, too.

Re: Where to start?

inkjunkie — Sun, 15 Oct 2017 00:41:34 GMT

Looks like my reply vanished....hmmm...Need to start using my laptop instead of my tablet, looks like I hit the cancel button.
I do have a few questions. Need to exercise first...

Re: Where to start?

inkjunkie — Sun, 15 Oct 2017 00:43:14 GMT

I did sign up for an online class...not sure it is the right one for me but...

Re: Where to start?

inkjunkie — Mon, 16 Oct 2017 18:06:45 GMT

Pretty sure I know the answer but going to ask anyway...why the f/2.8 version of the 70-200mm? Simply that much faster than f/4 version?

Have started my online training. Have realized that I have been looking at several things from the wrong perspective. In short I have realized that I need to remove my cranium from my rectum and take a few breaths.

Have a ton of questions about my particular camera, but I want to see if I can figure them out simply by learning more about things in general.

Re: Where to start?

diverhank — Mon, 16 Oct 2017 19:56:50 GMT

@inkjunkie wrote:
Pretty sure I know the answer but going to ask anyway...why the f/2.8 version of the 70-200mm? Simply that much faster than f/4 version?

Have started my online training. Have realized that I have been looking at several things from the wrong perspective. In short I have realized that I need to remove my cranium from my rectum and take a few breaths.
Have a ton of questions about my particular camera, but I want to see if I can figure them out simply by learning more about things in general.

The f/2.8 lets in twice the amount of light as the f/4. It is one stop faster. It also gives you better bokeh at f/2.8 compared to f/4. On the reverse side, it is almost twice as big and heavy and costs more money. Choose your poison :).

I think the key to success is to realize what you didn't know or know what you knew was wrong. You are well on your way to success :).

Re: Where to start?

Waddizzle — Mon, 16 Oct 2017 23:27:08 GMT

@inkjunkie wrote:
Pretty sure I know the answer but going to ask anyway...why the f/2.8 version of the 70-200mm?

Because it is mad, crazy sharp! The camera body was a full frame 6D Mark II.

Shot with a

Re: Where to start?

John_SD — Fri, 20 Oct 2017 22:22:37 GMT

As has been mentioned, Canon provides its own post processing software suite called Digial Photo Professional. It is free with Canon DSLR cameras. You can also download it from the Canon site, which is what I did. It is perfectly fine for my usage. I would start with DPP. I think you'll find it more than capable at this stage.

I would provide a simple link to ALL of the DPP tutorials, but the mods would have a nervous breakdown or ban me.

Re: Where to start?

inkjunkie — Tue, 31 Oct 2017 15:57:53 GMT

To those that suggested the EF 70-200 f/2.8...most sincerest of Thanks. Got the lens yesterday. Mounted it on my T7i. First picture I took. I shoot RAW/JPEG, for now. This was the first shot I took. Mita, one of our Redbone Coonhounds. Yes, she really is this dark. This is the JPEG out of the camera...