Rachel's River, a struggle to photograph there. An edited experimental blog!

[Rachel Foster]

Rachel, I noted you were shooting in Shutter Priority mode (I looked at the exif data). Is that why you were using that? One very helpful way I learned was to put my camera on automatic and see what the camera wanted to shoot at and then I'd flip to manual mode and modify the settings to my liking. It was a great learning tool for me. P mode will do the same but this was before I understood what P Mode was (It was during my film days too - maybe there was no P mode)

I'll be shooting in P mode from now on (for a bit anyway til I move to the next step).

The EXIF data says it was taken at 30mm, which on your Rebel XTi is very close to "normal" so it's not very wide. Did you buy the kit lens? That 18-55 won't win any awards (mine is very soft in the lower left corner) but it does go reasonably wide. When you said you "got it to 3.5" I think you were referring to aperture, not focal length. The shorter the focal length the wider the angle of view (on the same camera).

Yes, that's the lens I'm using.

Next, it seems this was shot in aperture priority (where I do at least 80% of my shooting), but only stopped down to f/4. Since this was bright daylight you had a shutter speed of 1/1250 and had lots of room to stop down without resorting to a tripod. Even f/11 would have been plenty fast for handheld and would have helped sharpness front to back. The smaller the aperture (the bigger the f-stop, numerically) the deeper the depth of field.

Switching to P mode for now

Aaron

(Note: Red comments inserted by me.)

So, if I want to lose the blurry foreground, I need to close up my aperture and lengthen the focus. (The Rebel For Dummmies DVD said close up the aperture and it lengthens the focal ... focus. I'm not 100% sure I've got it straight but I will.)

 

[Rachel Foster]

Hi Rachel,

Using the tripod, I hope you are also using the timer or a remote/cable release. There is no point in setting it on a tripod, then prodding the button ;-). I take it the tripod is as stable a stable thing, not blowing in the wind. If you hang a weight from the centre of the tripod, it will become more stable. (A carrier bag with a couple of rocks will do)

Rachel: Tripod has an addition of a bag of rocks now. Today I drove 45 minutes to a camera store and picked up the remote.

If it is easy to get to the river, then I would suggest you set the camera up, and take shots at various settings of speed, aperture and iso, set the lens to manual focus, and focus on the rock in the centre image. Use just the centre focus point, on, say, the rh edge of the rock. You need a high contrast boundary for the focus indicator to work. Be methodical!!. set iso at 100, then vary av, in, say, 2 f stops from wide open to tight. Then set iso to 400, and repeat. Repeat for the higher iso ranges. You do not need to look through the viewfinder. The process will be quite quick, if you use a cable release, a bit slower if on the timer. Go way beyond the ranges you would expect to use. I would guess 50 or so shots required.
Ray

I think I'm taking a break from the river (unfortunate mishap occurred during yesterday's shoot) but when I return it will be with a very methodological approach and notes taken. That's one thing I've not done well: make notes.

And...I now know my aperture from my ISO.

 

[Rachel Foster]

I think I can claim improvement. I'm attaching two photos from today's river shoot. They are not the same place as previous river shots. However, the issue has become learning to use my camera to get crisp, focused shots. These are unedited and not presented for content or composition; rather, crispness and clarity are the focus...as it were.

I zoomed in on this one an unbelievable degree and it's still reasonably crisp!

Special thanks to those who have helped me with this.

 

[Greg Rogers]

Noteable improvement, Rachel. Well done!
-Greg

 

[Rachel Foster]

Recommendation please

I have a canon rebel xti that came with this lens: 18-55mm.

What's the cheapest lens I can get that will allow me to get this shot?

I was so disappointed I did not have the right equipment.

 

[ron_hiner]

Rachel -- what shot are you trying to get? How is this shot diferent than the one you wanted?

Ron

 

[Duke Beattie]

If you look at the EXIF data for this shot------------------------
Orientation of image: 1
File change date and time: 2007:09:22 09:14:34
Image input equipment manufacturer: Canon
Image input equipment model: Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XTi
Exposure time: 0.002
F number: 5.6
Exposure program: 6
ISO speed rating: 400
Shutter speed: 8.96579
Aperture: 4.97086
Exposure bias: 0
Metering mode: 5
Flash: 16
Lens focal length: 55
Focal plane X resolution: 3210.95
Focal plane Y resolution: 3230.24
Focal plane resolution unit: 2
Custom rendered: 0
Exposure mode: 0
White balance: 0
Scene capture type: 0

Notice the focal length of the lens... 55mm... you have it..... assuming that you would want to duplicate this shot..

 

[Asher Kelman]

I have a canon rebel xti that came with this lens: 18-55mm.

What's the cheapest lens I can get that will allow me to get this shot?

I was so disappointed I did not have the right equipment.

Hi Rachel,

The question you ask has many intepretations.

• I'd like to do this with a better lens, one that is designed for such a scene, but I want to reproduce this same scene to a finer manner. The answer, 55mm is then correct and an EF Canon 60mm 2.5 Macro would be perfect. It's quality is impresssive and its not expensive. IMHO, this may be the best single Canon lens to own. It can be used for portraits too with your camera giving an angle of view similar to a 96mm portrait lens, which would be outstanding. For $230 brand new, you can't go wrong! If you want to go a tad wide, or are short on cash, think of the 50 1.8. For $80 you can steal the 50mm 1.8, which despite being a plastic bodied lens, is perfectly fine for all your portrait and group pictures, you just zoom with your feet. Just 4-5 steps either way is all you need!
  
  
• I'd like to redo the picture, isolating that bird! Well you could have zoomed in further to 85mm and the bird would have come much closer and you'd have been fairly happy.
  
  
  To do better than that quailty, for almost for $100 more than the EF 60mm Macro, I'd get the EF 85 mm f1.4, a remarkable bargain with which again you can do landacape with a small angle of view and portraits. In the latter case, if you use it just stopped down to a smaller aperture, but still pretty wide open, say just f2.0 or 2.8, you will have an attractive softening of the background that is out of focus (OOF) and the eye will feast on your subject.
  ​
• I really want just the bird!
  In this case, there EF lenses which if the L series of lenses didn't exist people would praise and obsess about. I'm sure that any competent photographer can make perfect images and earn a living with EF lenses.​

Here's some ideas:A used 100-300 zoom Telephoto EF lens. No stibilization but you'll use a tripod anyway at that length since you might be concenred about hand shake! $199 is not too bad!That's available at B&H, here . Better still, I'd get this lens if you can afford it. This is thev 70-200 f 4.0L IS. One of the best lenses ever. It is often avaialble used for $450-550.
​

Now I come to my own reaction:

• I like the picture
  
• The bird has context,
  
• It looks like nature not a picture in a catalog
  
• It's relaxing
  
• Congrats
  
• What on earth do you not like about it?

Asher

BTW, Do you happen to know the name of that bird? When doe it arrive?

 

[Kathy Rappaport]

50 2.5 Macro

I have a 50 2.5 macro - it's why I bought the Canon 5d - full frame. But on the Rebel it's equal to the 75 on the efs. I tend to like focal lengths of 35 (on crop bodies) or less or 150mm or longer. Just my personal taste.

When I started out with film, I shot with the 50 2.5 macro mostly or the 75-300 4.5 once in a while. Now I tend more toward the 24 end of my 24-70 or 24-105 or I use the 70-200 on the longer ends. It's really all about the style your taking!

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

..... This is thev 70-200 f 4.0L IS. One of the best lenses ever. It is often avaialble used for $450-550...

Hi Asher,

Once again, you have given great advice. I think the "IS" version of 70-200 is more expensive and since it is a new lens it is not that often available used. I guess you were referring to the EF 70-200 F4L without the IS, correct?

Cheers,

 

[nicolas claris]

Bonjour Rachel
as usual Asher gave you some very good recomendations… to dig!

I use to shoot from 12 to 500mm… from almost any point of view, each focal can be used, only your intent (or the lens you have in your bag;-) will drive you to choose one or another…

But suppose you're stuck with what you have… compose with it (in all meanings).

In this way, your image has a lot to reveal! I just did some PS adjustment (highlight and shadow, midtone sharpening) and put the horizontal… horizontal (line of water/trees), Yes, I know Asher, I'm maniac with horizon, but if boats are designed to heal, our brain (in such images) likes to have it on its real/due position. And some cloning to fill the empty parts made by the rotation:

What did bring these contrats and colors in PS? this:

 

[Rachel Foster]

Those are very helpful responses.

I wanted just the bird. The overall photo I find has no real focal point. It strikes me as busy and blah.

We were at the local part (where the river is) and it was in the morning. My husband said "Oh, look! A heron!" I know it's not a parakeet so I'll buy heron. S/he slowly picked its way across the river in very majestic, measured steps.

On a shoot a couple of weeks ago, I saw some ducks (I think) posturing and doing duck things. I couldn't zoom in close enough to get the shot I wanted.

Thanks.

Edited to add: The water reflections in particular seem to muddy the scene, not letting the eye settle.

 

[Kathy Rappaport]

Reflections

I love those reflections. They give context to the Heron's surroundings. Personally, I like the photo as is but I do understand the depth and wanting to be closer. That could happeen with or without a longer (telephoto) lens. When I go out to shoot frequently I will take one lens. And then the opportunity comes up where I needed wider or longer. Sometimes you can zoom with your feet (walk closer to the subject or into the scene). Sometimes you have to zoom in by cropping in post processing.

One other thing that was an exercise for a class I took. We had to use one focal length for the entire class. (Finding your photographic voice with Carlan Tapp at the Santa Fe Workshops). I used the 50 2.5. Made us find our images. No two people had the same thing. But it was about style.

 

[Deleted member 55]

What's the cheapest lens I can get that will allow me to get this shot?

Try the EF 300mm f4 L IS and add a 1.4 or 2.0 tele-converter if needed.

Or in the same price range but more versatile / slightly less sharp the EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS.

 

[Jeff O'Neil]

Rachel..I know what you're looking for..just the damn bird!

me too!

Sooo...the lens I have for this is an inexpensive canon 75-300mm. It has image stabilization for my creaky hands and it's not massively heavy.

The previous posters are correct when they mention the 70-200IS either the F2.8 or F4.0 models and the other canon "white" lenses. They are expensive, heavy and perhaps overkill for the moment. I picked up the 75-300 right after I purchased my Rebel a few years ago. It was my Long telephoto lens for a number of years and I still use the lens from time to time. No huge investment and nothing unwieldy to carry about when I was trying to concentrate on about 56 things every time I took a shot! Sigma makes the same focal distance of 70-300 but no stabilization for less money than the Canon.

I like to get in tight on the animal as well. It's fun!

Google the lens and see what you think.

Jeff

 

[Asher Kelman]

Yes, Jeff,

I really feared Rachel was after the "damn bird"!

I actually like the natural scene with the bird in context. Only thing I'd prefer is more height, to complete the trees.

This is a quiet little sanctuary for wildlife and a miracle that it is not totally paved in concrete, like the Los Angleles river!!! UGH!!

I suspect if one ventured a little fiurther there would be something ugly but, let's enjoy this. The bird alone is fine too. I just like the delusion that it has somewhere to live!

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

I grew about a mile from the Los Angeles "River." I know what you mean.

 

[Rachel Foster]

I finally got a shot of the river I like at first look. I'm sure I'll find things to improve, and this is from a different place, but the river "a la Rachel:"

 

[Charles L Webster]

Rachel,

There are some inexpensive, fairly good lenses in the 70-200/70-300 range. Tamron makes a decent 70-300 as does Sigma (stay away from the "non-APO" version).

Inexpensive long lenses are generally not good quality and you will soon "out grow" a poor quality lens. It doesn't help to isolate the bird, if it's not sharp.

The Canon 70-200 f/4.0L USM is a good sharp lens at a very reasonable price ($600). It isn't very fast, and doesn't have IS, but those things add a lot to the price.

Try cropping the picture to isolate the bird. Is it sharp enough for your purposes?

If you are only showing your work on the web and on screen, a crop to that picture should be adequate.

<Chas>

 

[Rachel Foster]

Some members of the forum are aware I've been struggling to master the basics. I've had an especially difficult time getting focused shots with the new Canon Rebel. I shot about 160 frames this afternoon at the river. The only deleted photos are of children. The dreck is there, untouched.

I think I'm making progress and wanted to share that my experimentation along with the tips and advice I've gotten here are paying off. I have left the dreck for the purpose of "tellin it like it is."

http://s183.photobucket.com/albums/x153/annieblues/Ha%20ha%20ha%20ha%20haaaaaaaa/

 

[Rachel Foster]

edited...attempting to add image correctly

[/IMG]

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Rachel,


You must decide what of the pictures you take are not worth keeping and delete them. You can't waste brain space twice! Only keep a sibling of an image you need when that might help repair something. Otherwise delete everything!

Just follow the DAM book. Buy it. Peter Krogh is the author.

The idea is to use iview media pro or even iphoto bridge, Lightroom or whatever to grade your pictures.

After deleting duds, give 1 in 4 at the most one *. Those are the ones you consider you might work on.

From that pick a small fraction that you choose to spend time on now and give two stars ** . Dont worry about any more stars. To get to images worthy of 2 stars would be excellent. Now these are the pictures you should show.

So of 500 pics you take right now, discard 100 to 400 depending on your guts and honesty. Of that remaining say 100 choose the 25 best, then of that maybe 1-4. That's what you should show.

Now if you are the sort of person that waits, watches, paces, draws, has a glass of wine, then takes 4 pictures, they all might be fine, but that's a long way off for either my work or your!

So pick the 4 best and let's see them!

Cheers,

Asher



Warning: anyone who posts in this experimental "blog-thread" please note that after a while non-substantial posts will have to go so that the thread remains worthwhile for others later on. This does not applyv to the rest of the forum. Remember that OPF does not delete P{rofessional posts. Here, this is a test bed for a new idea!

 

[Rachel Foster]

Oh I really had no intention of anyone doing anything but taking a quick glance and seeing they are in focus.

These photos were "Learning how to use my camera" photos. "Take this shot in P mode, set the shutter. Now, take same in TV and see how it's different. Now what's it look like in AV?" etc.

I actually got most in reasonable focus and was pleased. I haven't looked at any for artistic value. These were, again, just to learn the Rebel. I've been doing this for a couple of weeks and I'm beginning to know before I shoot which mode I'm going to get the effect I'm after in. Or "most likely" to get it, anyway.

P.S. ALL WERE HANDHELD! Ha!

P.P.S. Remember, I'm taking baby steps. Operating the camera before trying to shoot "art." Systematic approach and all. Getting focus and learning to operate the camera has been a challenge for me and -- for me -- is a huge step forward.

 

[Rachel Foster]

Of those I took this afternoon down at the river, this one consistently draws my eye. It's totally unmanipulated, not even cropped. (I imagine there may be some suggestions there!) To me, it looks startling clear, although I confess I don't notice blurring well (could be the progressive lenses I wear...I never seem to be looking through the precise place; I actually edit better with naked eye).

This was taken without tripod! It was overcast and in the late afternoon, so I had kicked the iso up to 800. I was shooting in P mode for this one. I boosted the shutter speed to 1/320 and the aperture set itself at 14. The exif data says the metering mode was matrix and I've not yet learned what that is. I also have not gotten to histograms yet. If I have a couple more shoots with good crisp images, histograms are next.

I suspect the attribute that lures me in is the bright leaves against the dark background. The few leaves that are turning just happened to catch the sun.

Again, today's shoot was primarily aimed at conquering focus issues.

 

[Asher Kelman]

I'd like to see a 900 pixel wide version.

This is more fascinating. The excercise is focus. What were you trying to focus on BTW?

I do like the image somewhat against my will, because it has no compositional components I like or admire! So this has nothing to do with learning anything. Perhaps it's the most weird placement of the pale leaves in the dark b.g. with some gentler light filtering through the leaves that gets me.

Whether or not it's really going to be a good one to work on keep this to look at again.

Asher

 

[Rachel Foster]

I'm having the same problem. I'm drawn to it but I don't know why. Compositionally, it's rather average. Perhaps it is the "startle" effect?

I don't know why it uploaded so small. I tried to upload it again, and once more came out small. I'll shoot it to you via yousendit.com.


As an aside, does anyone know if this is a poisonous spider? I've been shooting its web and it occurred to me to check. It is larger than it looks. (Found the answer: orb weaver spider, low toxicity, can grow more than an inch in length.)

 

[Rachel Foster]

Oversight: I neglected to answer the question regarding focus. I was drawn by the light on the leaf and focused on that. I have two more shots, each successively closer.

but I prefer the more distant shot.

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Some members of the forum are aware I've been struggling to master the basics.

Not to add even more to your to-do list, but these tips may be of help.

Bart

 

[Rachel Foster]

Thank you!

 

[Rachel Foster]

Asher, regarding the leaf photo, I think I've worked out what my response to it is. I think it's pretty, to me it's charming, but it's not art. Does that make sense?

But it is in focus...I think!