[John Bennett]

Bryan Petersons : Understanding Exposure
http://www.chapters.indigo.ca/books/Understanding-Exposure-How-Shoot-Great-Bryan-Peterson/9780817463007-item.html?pticket=ujmkgrbd0k0hniy0qnhmek55eUwA6j7nMW2YR9aW4IxF%2bBjyoeE%3d

make it your bible

[John Bennett]

Mike low light situations are tough and without fast glass there just isn’t alot you can do.

Shooting in low light presents 3 problems.

1) Low contrast. This can make it tough for the camera to acquire focus

2) Shake: This leads to “blurred” images. The rule of thumb for avoiding shake for the average person is keeping your shutter speed at or higher than 1/focal length. So shooting at wide angles vs mid or long is easier all else being equal.

Meaning. If the lights low and you need to shoot at 1/40th of a second you can avoid shake by “zooming” out to a focal length thats less than 40mm. At 1/40th you need to be very practised hand holding anything above say 80mm.

3) Motion Blur; in low light, that same slow shutter speed usually isnt high enough to “freeze” anything that moves…like fish, so even if you over come the “shake” issue, motion in your subject can still lead to blurred and/or soft images.

First thing to try is using some support, for something like one of the WPs look at a Gorilla pod. Cheap, light, and compact, makes bringing them with you easier. You could upgrade your body to a PnS that has faster glass or “Image Stabalisation” but then you lose the WP aspect. Im guessing you dont want that.

All that said.
What Shutter Speed was the above image taken at? Appearances can be deceiving but it doesn’t look like the light is that bad, so as to have you shooting at very low Shutter speeds. It *looks* like the problem may be shake, but there could be something else going on, my pure guess is you might be inside the camera’s minimum focus distance as a result of “zooming’ in. It looks like the camera hasnt focused on anything as much or more than itlooks like shake. Theres virtually no motion blur (problem #3), although theres a wee bit visible in the water, however if you look closely at the air bubbles below the gills.
a) they exhibit no motion blur despite being in the current, suggesting a SS high enough to freeze them and b) they are reasonably sharp (in focus) as opposed the fish.

For illustrative purposes only
Heres a low light shot at f9 and ISO 500, well above the average PnS max aperture of f4. I shot this at 1/160th which should be more than enough to avoid both shake and motion blur. The point is to illustrate it takes pretty low light to be forced under 1/40th.

And even less light to be forced under 1/25th which if your at the wide end of your focal range (24-28mm) should be what you need to avoid shake

[John Bennett]

Nice Jason.

[John Bennett]

John its a feature on all new Canon bodies since the 50D about 18 months ago.

Bodies and lenses are “built to spec” and each have a tolerance variance. For the most part it’s not a huge issue but people might find their body or a new lens purchase was front/back focusing a bit and sending them in to Canon to be Calibrated.

Say for example the tolerance +/-5 on a scale with 0 being perfect. You might have a body thats +3 and when paired with a lens that was -1. You’d never notice. But what if that same lens off the shelf was -2??. The variance from back/front focus is 5 widgetts or millimeters or whatever standard of measurement Canon uses. Either way, they would calibrate both.

Now what if you’ve had a lens for years that was +4 and when mounted on your body that also back focused a hair (+3) they are fine. Yes theyback focus a hair but again its a minute amount.

So you send your new lens thats -1 and body (thats =3) into Canon for calibration and they come back perfect…both at -1 (within spec) Does your old favorite lens now need to be calibrated as well?????

So on all new bodies Canon has a feature called “micro focus adjustment”. Its an adjustment you make to your body and its stored in memory for each of your lenses.

Thus your body is calibrated to each of your lenses and when you mount a different lens, the setting is recalled. You can calibrate your body to 20 lenses. Keep in mind the adjustments are minute.

[John Bennett]

Bah these things can drive me nuts 🙂

Is the 7Ds focusing/AF/IQ the best out there? No, but those that are better cost quite a bit more. Theres *nothing* wrong with it

Would anyone be unhappy with  this image?
Courtesy of a friend who has been using the 7D for awhile

If yes, buy a Pro body
if no, I’m guessing you’ll be tickled pink by the 7D

[John Bennett]

Very cool.
Takes stones to get in the water with them.

[John Bennett]

Morsie I know a handful of people shooting with it and they arent complaining

[John Bennett]

The hoods fine Dusty.

Using a CP is a personal choice, I use a CP alot.

[John Bennett]

Dave, the 1550 is about perfect for boats. I fit alot in it when I need to, yet it’s no so large that I can fit more than I need. The temptation to bring “everything” is always present, this way your forced to think about what you want to bring, and what gets left behind.

Chad, they are supposed to float, yes.

[John Bennett]

Question for lightroom users.

I like CS ( ACR and photoshop), but am not happy with bridge. Have been wondering whether to start using LR or wait for CS5. For those of you using LR and ACR as your raw converter, do you find you still use PS? I guess what Im driving at is keeping both LR and PS current would become prohibitively expensive.

[John Bennett]

I have the Lowepro Vertex 300. Its big enough for my 1D and 500mm if I really needed to, otherwise I can pack a ton of stuff in it.

Pros: about everything including weight distribution
Cons: Like any back pack access can be better. Its weather/water resistant vs “proof”. Ive been in heavy rain with it and it worked, it should offer enough “resistance” to protect versus a quick dip but not a swim.

So I basically use 3 things.
The big Lowepro BP, a Pelican (when I want bullet proof protection) and Think Tank modules when Im light and want convenience.

As both David and Morsie theres no one answer.

[John Bennett]

Tim in answer to the sky in #1.
The different tones of blue in the sky from left to right is often a result of a CP and it’s orientation relative to the sun. Theres no alot you can do about that, other than be aware of it as your aligning your CP.

The black and white.
W/O being there as its being shot, it’s hard to say what to suggest. The sun appears low so either mid morn or later in the aftnoon? At those times you should be towards the end of the best light (morning) or nearing it, if the suns setting. My question would be, why shoot B/W when the lights nice unless you have a compelling reason.

With regards to avoiding blowing the sky in that image. From the looks of it, not much you can do there either, not if you want to bring out detail in the shadows. This is where you might want to shoot an HDR or use NDs.

[John Bennett]

Not overly surprising, note Royce’s comments ( Royce is also one of a very view whose opinions I “trust”).

For a long time both Canon and Nikon increased the strength of the AA filters to combat the increase in pixel counts. With the 40>50>7D its got be one of the strongest AA filters out there.

Thats why no matter what body you use, everyone needs to do a little “capture sharpening” to their raw files. The stronger the AA filter, the flatter/softer your images are going to look. Comparing 2 Raw files *is* comparing apples to oranges if the strength of the AA filter is different.

I know quite a few people who use the 7D now and their files are extremely good especially for an 18mp on a 1.6 crop. That said over all IQ is very similiar to the 50D, which is very similiar to the 40D. So ultimately Canon *was* as they claim able to retain IQ while drastically upping the MP. No crop camera will ever compare to the files produced by Pro bodies and the better “semi Pro” (5DmkII etc), again its comparing apples/oranges

[John Bennett]

Canon has had highlight tone priority for a few years.
New since the 50D bodies is something they call auto lighting optimiser

Both are available in all Canon bodies now so shooters can choose either setting (if desired, I personally dont like leaving things to the camera if at all possible) and work similiar to Nikons D lighting.

New with the Canon 7D and forthcoming 1DmkIV is a new metering system. Back lit subjects shots from the 7D  that I’ve seen are *very* good. No in camera blending, or exposure adj’s… just different metering..Mind you Im not fully up to speed on how they meter differently.

This is a back lit Gold finch in fairly strong light. Typically you would need fill flash to expose the birds breast w/o completely blowing the back ground.

A friends early test image with the 7D

Canon claims that the gapless microlens first introduced with the 50D has allowed them to increase the MP, yet maintain same noise levels without increasing the strength of the AA filter. (see 50D to 40D and now 7D to 50D).

In reading some notes/specs/press releases about the 1DMKIV I noticed Canon is *claiming* that the same gapless microlens tech is resulting in increased dynamic range…Typical manufactorer propaganda??? I dont know…remains to be seen

Either way it’s about time the big boys atleast *look* at and try to come with ways to improve digitals next holy grail (previously noise).

Hell of a shot Ben….love it

[John Bennett]

For Canon is part of the software thats come with your body.
I don’t do studio so have only played with it a bit, but if I did more studio work, Id be tethered to tethered 🙂

Have wondered many a time if there might be an application in the bush with a laptop. Im sure there is

[John Bennett]

I was referring to the paint  specifically Zach, I probably should have been clear about that. I have zero qualms about spending coin for gear of any kind, be it a well made reel, techncial clothing, lenses or bodies etc.

But I dont spend for “bling”.  There are other reels out there just as well made, just as dependable, just as good for all intents and purposes without the “bling”.

Ive looked at the Abel 4wt with the Brown pattern and while I like the look, Im not paying close to $1,000 (retail in Cda) for bling. There are probably dozens of other reels for trout streams in the 3 to 50 wt range just as “good”, suitable and more practical.

[John Bennett]

Is it any different than the Abel Anondized reels?

That Hardy is no different. All are purely “status” symbols. The only difference is the scale. For those who have the coin with no more important priority to spend it on, the Hardy is to many, what the Abels are to many. Out of reach, pure Jonesing, status symbols. .

[John Bennett]

I don’t think anyone is suggesting people not enter. Personally quite the opposite, contest are crap shoots and you could win. However I also think people should be aware of the “rights” issue’s and then they can make an informed decision for themselves.

deduct the cost of internet access /gas/road food/gear -from income – this year a couple of feature articles and covers  in major magazines and I’m down a lot money playing at being a freelance photographer, tempered only by the fact my ego is boosted and I am having a lot of fun:))))

Which is why personally, I dont give the rights to my images away.
It is a lot of fun, I love doing it and money is one of the least motivators for me. However, I spend alot of *my* money and just as importantly *my* time *getting* the images publishers/corporations/people want and like to have for *their* use or gain.

Thats worth someting, no matter what level you are or aspire to be at.

[John Bennett]

Thats true to Bob.
And more power to you, I’m not as bothered by the current “landscape” for photographers, as Im a Johnny come lately wannabe, whos working very hard at getting to the next level (s) 🙂 In some way Im “one of those guys” 🙂

But I do emphasise with Photographers who have seen their livelyhoods kneecapped. Its all tied into the same threads/topics that get discussed from time to time. Even as a person whos “breaking in a bit” and whos “working at it”, I feel it all the time. I can only imagine what its like for adjusting to it, rather than entering at a time and with it. Ive had a good year, a couple covers probably over 20 images bought/published… I wont break even, not once I factor in all my expenses, including time.

People expecting things for “free”, rights grabs, copyright infringement (ive been a victim on small scales), and on and on and on. I cant tell you how often Ive been asked for material to be used in ads/promos/personal usage and they want it “free” and almost seem to be upset when I refuse and have on occasion explained or asked.

Whats your time worth to you?

There was a time when *contest* were about photography and artistry. Now they are rights grabs….and at the end of the day, its the industry that suffers…The writers, the photographers, etc,etc.

If orvis gets and keeps say 100 photos for *their* useage down the road. That useage will be to promote their product (make them money) and they pay roughly $10 (average cost base).

Thats a steal.
*************

On the topic of contest.
Do it, judging is spotty at best and sometimes impossible to interpret and thats true of almost all contest. They really are a crap shoot sometimes.

[John Bennett]

I had a good chance to look hard at the Loop Jackets and I like.
Alot. Will likely have one for next spring/season.

Very similiar to Simms G3s but with more style, colours to choose from.

[Author]

Posts