DSLR 101

[ebiggs1]

Here is a sample of RAW and how it can help make your photos better. 

Normal RAW exposure.

Normal exposure jpg.  They look pretty close because you are looking at a computer monitor.  The RAW has been converted to jpg in post.  The original jpg was done by the camera, a 1Ds Mk III in this case.

However, suspose you got something wrong. In this case I under exposed it by 3 stops.  But it could be any condition.  WB, color balance, saturation, and on and on, etc.

Corrected RAW.

Corrected jpg.  But below lets look a little closer.

Especially check the shadows. Can you see the difference?  Need a better look?  OK, here is a 100% crop of that enlargment.

It should be blantly obivious that RAW is the way to go.  All else was equal. Same camera. Same lens. Same time of day. Same, same!

Get Lightroom................

[jazzman1]

I got a question.

I have 2 Tripods a Ball Head and a Pan Head.  I've always had Pan Head Tripods and recently since I got into DSLR's, I decided to try the Ball Head for my Camera.  Most of the info I'd read up on about Tripods, seem to indicate  that Ball Heads are superior to Pan Heads.  So I'm using the Ball Head with my DSLR and the Pan Head for my Video Camcorder.  Comparing the two, I find that I like the Pan Head better and am thinking of using my Pan Head Tripod now for both.  It's harder it seems to get my Ball Head balanced correctly, though I do have a level bubble guide to use.  It's just more troublesome to have to keep ajusting it, on the different heights of the ground I'm generally on.   My Pan Head (for me) is just so much more easier to use.  Maybe because I'm so used to Pan Heads from using one for so many the years.              Do you have an opinion of which is best, and which one is considered the best for DSLR's????   I'm not talking about a brand name, I'm asking which style (Head or Pan) you think best for Camera Photography???

Also what should I look for (features, specs, output, etc) in a decent external light, for my Hotshoe on my Camera????  What should be the minimum specs to look for???

[RobertTheFat]

---

@jazzman1 wrote:

I got a question.

I have 2 Tripods a Ball Head and a Pan Head.  I've always had Pan Head Tripods and recently since I got into DSLR's, I decided to try the Ball Head for my Camera.  Most of the info I'd read up on about Tripods, seem to indicate  that Ball Heads are superior to Pan Heads.  So I'm using the Ball Head with my DSLR and the Pan Head for my Video Camcorder.  Comparing the two, I find that I like the Pan Head better and am thinking of using my Pan Head Tripod now for both.  It's harder it seems to get my Ball Head balanced correctly, though I do have a level bubble guide to use.  It's just more troublesome to have to keep ajusting it, on the different heights of the ground I'm generally on.   My Pan Head (for me) is just so much more easier to use.  Maybe because I'm so used to Pan Heads from using one for so many the years.              Do you have an opinion of which is best, and which one is considered the best for DSLR's????   I'm not talking about a brand name, I'm asking which style (Head or Pan) you think best for Camera Photography???

Neither a pan head nor a ball head is "better". It depends on how you plan to use it. A ball head gives you the greatest degree of adjustment in the three degrees of freedom: pitch, roll, and yaw. A pan head lets you set two of those parameters and smoothly manipulate the third (usually yaw) in real time.

[ebiggs1]

My first choice is a gimbal head but it isn't for everything.  Then I use a ball head.  No head on a monopod.

Flash is the 580 EX II or the new 600EX-RT.  IMHO, these are minimum and the best choice, all in one.

[ebiggs1]

"I never will be a full time professional, so I thought f2.8's would be overkill for me."

Have you re-read this statement?   You don't actually believe it?

[jazzman1]

Thanks Bob.  You used the words I was searching for, and you expained my exact delimma with Ball Heads.  When I set an angle, if I don't tighten the nob tight, the weight of my Camera causes the Camera to drop when I let go. If I want to change the angle again I have to loosen the non and retighten.   With my Pan Head I can leave the tightness just loose enough, where I can let the Pan handle go, and my Camera will stay in the position I left it in, till I move it again, and it always stay where I  position it.  I like I can smoothly pan with it.   The weight of my Camera does'nt cause my Camera to drop as with the Ball Head.  Is that how all Ball Heads work, or do I need a better one????    I know the Ball Head is more versitile than Pan Heads far as angles you can use, that's why I tried one.  You have almost a 360 degree angle you can ajust through.

[jazzman1]

I never will be a full time professional, so I thought f2.8's would be overkill for me."

Have you re-read this statement?   You don't actually believe it?

Maybe I'm not saying what I mean correctly but I told you this when I got my 24-105 f/4L.  I said this very thing and you said not a word at that time.  I'm not saying I would'nt ever use f/2.8L's lens, nor did I say I would never buy one, least that's not what I meant.  I meant that since I did'nt feel I would ever be a full time professional Photographer (as in full time work earning a living at it), I would'nt base my collection of lens in f/2.8L's.  That, I thought, would not be cost effective since I believe I will use f/4L's and some mid grade lens most of the time.  I can rent f/2.8's or better lenses when needed, if needed.   After we discussed this all a few days ago, I decided to just make Photography a hobby, though a serious hobby...and would do jobs for pay (part time) when I got them.  I use the word Professional loosely here, in that the dictionary says a professional gets paid for their work.  I had, nor have....any illusions of ever being a top notch Pro, working full time for a living, nor doing pro bono work for magazines, Tv, movies, Art Galleries, and other full time Professional venues.  I envisioned small time stuff like weddings, sociall gatherings, graduations, etc......part time, at my leisure.

Am I missing something here???   Have I said something wrong???   is there something I'm over looking???   If there's something you think you should say please do, you're free to shoot from the hip.  I give what you say and your opinions the highest respect and will give dutiful attention.

[jazzman1]

Biggs I thought Gimple was a brand.  Did'nt know it was a type of head.  What kind of head is that???

Thanks for the heads up on those flashes, I'll check them out.  You said alot about the value of these flashes.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@jazzman1 wrote:

I never will be a full time professional, so I thought f2.8's would be overkill for me."

Have you re-read this statement?   You don't actually believe it?

Maybe I'm not saying what I mean correctly but I told you this when I got my 24-105 f/4L.  I said this very thing and you said not a word at that time.  I'm not saying I would'nt ever use f/2.8L's lens, nor did I say I would never buy one, least that's not what I meant.  I meant that since I did'nt feel I would ever be a full time professional Photographer (as in full time work earning a living at it), I would'nt base my collection of lens in f/2.8L's.  That, I thought, would not be cost effective since I believe I will use f/4L's and some mid grade lens most of the time.  I can rent f/2.8's or better lenses when needed, if needed.   After we discussed this all a few days ago, I decided to just make Photography a hobby, though a serious hobby...and would do jobs for pay (part time) when I got them.  I use the word Professional loosely here, in that the dictionary says a professional gets paid for their work.  I had, nor have....any illusions of ever being a top notch Pro, working full time for a living, nor doing pro bono work for magazines, Tv, movies, Art Galleries, and other full time Professional venues.  I envisioned small time stuff like weddings, sociall gatherings, graduations, etc......part time, at my leisure.

Am I missing something here???   Have I said something wrong???   is there something I'm over looking???   If there's something you think you should say please do, you're free to shoot from the hip.  I give what you say and your opinions the highest respect and will give dutiful attention.

---

What you're missing is that the f/4 vs f/2.8 choice depends hardly at all on whether you might turn pro and a lot on whether you plan to use your cameras indoors. Only on a camera with really good low-light performance (a 5D Mark III, for instance) is an f/4 lens adequate for event photography indoors. If you're going to embark on the kind of events you mention above, you're going to need indoor lenses.

BTW, if you think weddings are "small time (i.e., easy) stuff", you are seriously mistaken. Weddings are a very specialized skill, and even reasonably experienced event photographers like me tend to avoid them altogether. (As it happens, I could do a better job than the doofus who photographed my daughter's wedding, but that's beside the point.) Wedding photographers have some of the pickiest clients on the planet. The risk of screwing up can be high and the consequences costly. If you choose to ignore this advice, don't say you weren't warned.

[ebiggs1]

"The risk of screwing up can be high and the consequences costly."

And I mean this is an understatement.  You have no idea and don't want to know. A new bride does not understand failure. For some this is a once in a life time occasion. "Sorry my flash didn't work." No matter how you plead!  Or, "My SD card got corrupted."  Really?  There are no redo's.  High stress, high pressure and a ton of work.  To top it off, after you spend several hours shooting a few thousand shots, you get to spend many more hours editing them.  Plus in some cases printing them.

"Biggs I thought Gimple "gimbal" was a brand." 

No it is not.  It is a type head and the best most of the time but not always.  Just like everything else in, it has its best uses.

I won't repeat the rest of what Bob from Boston said because he said it very well.

[jazzman1]

Thanks Bob,  

I was not aware of this.  Least not the way you've put it.  Maybe because I'm still a rookie, maybe because I don't attend very many weddings....for that matter have'nt attended that many weddings in all my life.   The ones I have, which have'nt been recent, I don't remember seeing anybody runnning around with telescopes on their cameras.   The park I go to and shoot everyday have many events photographed there.    I see peepswith Camera's walking couples, groups, and families round the park taking pre-event pics with normal camera/lens just like mine (it is in daylight though) all the time.   So Bob, no I was not aware of this, and glad you were kind enough to step in and tell me.  But then again why would I know this.   I'm new to DSLR's and still much a rookie in the game of serious photography.        I do know that f/2.8's are better in low light than f/4's.   And I knew for alot of indoor stuff I would probably need more external lighting with my f/4's.  But did'nt think till now the issues you've just brought to light would effect my overall plans.  I said that when needed I would rent f/2.8's.   Had'nt thought much that having a camera such as the 5D Mark lll would be so very important in the equastion.   It does give me pause for thought and guess I may have to re-think my overall plan.       At this point though Bob it's all very mute, cause I'm nowhere at the point of doing anything but learning, and getting better with my photography.  This and other stuff are things I have to learn in my growing process.  Right now a business is only a dream and way off in the distance in my game plan.  But this conversation brings home some things previously said (by you & Biggs), and makes alot of stuff click that  have been puzzles in my mind.  Even a few things Biggs has said that made no sense to me till now.  To be honest the only time I have seen those big heavy lens is with my club on meet outtings and most of the peeps that have those lens are just hobbiest like me, taking wildlife pics of birds and such.  I see alot of those big heavy lens on ocassions with my club members, but rarely have I seen anyone I thought Pro's doing work on the job with them.  In any event as I grow and learn I'll make adjustments to my plan accordingly.  

Funny though, unless you or Biggs tell me different, I can see no reason to alter the route (plan) I'm taking now.  If needed in the future if a job called for f2.8's I would get one if needed.  And since I now understand what you've said here about jobs and light, a 5D Mark lll, or better may be in my furue plans also.  And fast as tech is moving/changing today, and all the inovation and new gear coming out, the whole game may change in a few years, who knows.

Bob this conversation is bringing home alot of odd pieces of thought I've had in my mind that makes more sense now.

Thanks much my friend.