The Learning Curve

[Pea-n-Me]

I was reading back through the thread to get my bearings. I came across this and realized I never mentioned what the issue was. Maybe someone else can learn from it.

Last night I was at my son's baseball practice and I pulled out my camera and it wouldn't fire except on Auto. I knew it was a focus issue but I couldn't figure out exactly what it was. I was a little embarrassed so I just put it away.

It wasn't a focus issue. The problem was that the last time I'd used it, I had it on the 12 second timer (doing long exposure shots) and I'd never changed it back.

It's hard to remember sometimes what defaults, and what doesn't, but it's important to check your settings before you begin each photo session.

 

[MICKEY88]

before shooting in the raw&jpeg mode if yur camera has it, double check file size, with my camera if I shoot in that mode, the jpeg files are only about half the size they normally are if I just shoot jpeg...

another thing I noticed, if I shoot raw, then batch process to jpeg, I do noto get the same pic I would if just shooting jpeg,,, the converted jpegs are actually a larger file...




Confession time:

I had been a diehard jpeg shooter, following the theory that after 30 years I pretty much know what my camera can do, and how to make it do what I want, so I was quite happy with my jpeg files, and White balance adjustment is possible with jpegs with the right software,

at the end of March I shot a sweet 16 party it was in a large dark room, with black walls and colored spotlights after a few test shots I decided to shoot raw&jpeg, thinking I might want/need the extra info of the raw files..

thank goodness I did, in those extreme lighting conditions, the jpegs were very hard to adjust to get great pictures I was not happy,

I then opened my raw editor and quickly discovered that by making a few simple adjustments to WB and exposure, I could then batch process the entire event, and the pics were great..

never again will I shoot just jpeg

 

[AndrewWG]

Ok, I'll chime in here too. Although I'm not a super newbie, I consider myself an "advanced" newbie. I have had the Canon 30D for about 9 months now and love it! Glad I made the jump to the DSLR world, that's for sure. Now my money doesn't have to sit in a bank and rot!

Anyways, I shoot JPG+RAW. There is only one reason for this. For the life of me, I can't get the RAW files to show as a thumbnail in Windows XP OR Vista when I am looking at the folder in Windwos Explorer. Therefore, I check out the jpg's and open the RAW files. I will probably change this workflow to just open ALL of the RAW files right off the bat with Lightroom, but for some reason old habits die hard so I have been still doing it this way.

I love the ability to correct my photos in the RAW files. I would never shoot without it now. However, someday, I would like to take photos that don't need editing. That will be quite awhile from now.

Another thing I do if I am in a situation that the lighting is strange is go shoot a white piece of paper and tell the camera that that particular picture represents "white", no matter what color it comes out. This is a custom white balance. It works quite well for most situations, although in normal everyday situations, the auto white balance on the camera works just fine too.

I do have a question for all you more experienced newbies though. If I change the quality settings on the camera to small, junky, quality, will that affect my RAW files? I don't think so, but it should make the jpg's smaller in file size, thus saving room on the memory card.

 

[Code]

Wouldn't there be quite a difference in file size between the RAW and JPEG?

Do you use the setting where you can do both?

On my Oly E-510, the highest quality JPGs are typically between 3-7 meg depending on content, and RAWs are 10 meg each. So on average I could store twice as many JPG, but I carry 2 memory cards (4gb and 1gb) and have only ever had to switch to the spare once over the course of a full day.

I shoot RAW only. I give all my photos at least a quick tweak before converting to JPG, but even if I didn't I could still easily get the JPG the camera would make after the fact, so unless I'm in a huge hurry it just seems like a waste of space to create both on the memory card.

before shooting in the raw&jpeg mode if yur camera has it, double check file size, with my camera if I shoot in that mode, the jpeg files are only about half the size they normally are if I just shoot jpeg...

True... some cameras don't let you choose the quality setting of the JPG in RAW+JPG mode. Not sure which brands/models have this restriction.

another thing I noticed, if I shoot raw, then batch process to jpeg, I do noto get the same pic I would if just shooting jpeg,,, the converted jpegs are actually a larger file...

This is probably just a compression level difference...

 

[Code]

I do have a question for all you more experienced newbies though. If I change the quality settings on the camera to small, junky, quality, will that affect my RAW files? I don't think so, but it should make the jpg's smaller in file size, thus saving room on the memory card.

Nope, RAW data will not be affected by your JPG quality setting.

 

[AndrewWG]

Nope, RAW data will not be affected by your JPG quality setting.

That is what I figured. I haven't noticed any difference in the RAW files when I did change it to those settings awhile back. I changed back to highest quality when I thought about it and wasn't sure if it did affect RAW files.

Thanks for the answer to that one!

 

[mikamah]

I thought the learning curve thread would be a good place to post what I am learning. I went to my niece's chorus show last night, and it was the first show I've been to with my xti, so I played around a little before the show and decided to us the 50mm/1.8 lens, but half way through, on av mode set at 1.8, and iso 1600 my shutter speeds were 200, so I switched to the 28-135/f3.5-5.6 and zoomed in and took some more pictures, still at iso 1600, and was very happy with the results. Initially I had thought with the 50mm, I'd be able to crop, but I know they would look really noisy if I cropped them too far. I'll post a few pics and would love any advice or suggestions. My son has a variety show this week that I'll be photographing.

An added bonus, it was a disney show.
iso 1600, 28mm, f3.5, 1/40 sec

iso 1600, 50mm, f1.8, 1/200sec

iso 1600, 125mm, f5.6, 1/30 sec

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Those look nice, mikamah. Was it fairly dark in there? Are you liking the 50mm f1.8?

For the experts - what's the difference between the 50mm f1.8 and the 30mm f1.8?

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Those look nice, mikamah. Was it fairly dark in there? Are you liking the 50mm f1.8?

For the experts - what's the difference between the 50mm f1.8 and the 30mm f1.8?

The focal length. A 30mm lens has a wider field of view than a 50mm lens...it's zoomed out more.

 

[ScrapperKimmyD]

subbing - cause I need to!

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I was reading back through the thread to get my bearings. I came across this and realized I never mentioned what the issue was. Maybe someone else can learn from it.



It wasn't a focus issue. The problem was that the last time I'd used it, I had it on the 12 second timer (doing long exposure shots) and I'd never changed it back.

It's hard to remember sometimes what defaults, and what doesn't, but it's important to check your settings before you begin each photo session.

Many cameras have a way to save their complete configuration. I have the option of saving mine and when I load it, it resets every setting (including deeply buried custom functions and all that stuff). If your camera has a similar capability, you might try setting up your camera in a very neutral fashion that represents a baseline for you. Then you can load those settings when you are ready to go shooting.

What should your baseline be? That depends on you. For me, these are the settings I sometimes turn off that I'd like to force back on:

1) Av exposure mode
2) 400 ISO
3) AI Servo focus mode
4) All AF points active
5) Focus moved to the * button
6) Mirror lockup turned off
7) Low speed continuous shooting
8) 5 shot bracketing
9) No exposure compensation
10) No flash exposure compensation
11) Rear curtain flash sync
12) Evaluative (matrix) metering

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Of course not, MinnieMouse73. Everyone is welcome.



I'll have to digest that for a while. At least I know where to come for questions.

Wouldn't there be quite a difference in file size between the RAW and JPEG?

Do you use the setting where you can do both?

Think of it this way. You are always shooting in RAW. When you tell the camera to shoot in JPG, it shoots in RAW, converts the RAW file to a JPG, and then only writes the JPG file. When you tell the camera to shoot in RAW, it doesn't bother to convert to JPG and just saves the RAW file.

When you convert the RAW file to a JPG on your computer, you're just doing what the camera would have done. All you've done is wasted more space (on the RAW file) and time. All you've gained is a bunch of extra information in the RAW file that you can use if you ever need it.

You can adjust pretty much anything with a JPG that you can adjust with a RAW file. The only problem is that you've already thrown a lot of information away when the camera converted the RAW file to a JPG. The JPG is sort of like the cliff notes version of your picture. It's enough to tell the story, but it could be missing key bits of information that you might decide to use later.

If you do shoot JPG, don't repeatedly edit and save JPG files. Every time you do that, the picture degrades in quality. If you are going to shoot JPG, save your edits as PSD files or something that is losslessly compressed. Then you can make changes to your hearts content and just output a JPG file at the end for posting online.

One other option for editing JPGs is to use a parametric editor like Lightroom. Lightroom doesn't really edit your file. Instead, it just saves the instructions for the changes you made. The original file is still there and hasn't been further compressed.

 

[Dcanoli]

The focal length. A 30mm lens has a wider field of view than a 50mm lens...it's zoomed out more.

Think of it this way. You are always shooting in RAW. When you tell the camera to shoot in JPG, it shoots in RAW, converts the RAW file to a JPG, and then only writes the JPG file. When you tell the camera to shoot in RAW, it doesn't bother to convert to JPG and just saves the RAW file.

When you convert the RAW file to a JPG on your computer, you're just doing what the camera would have done. All you've done is wasted more space (on the RAW file) and time. All you've gained is a bunch of extra information in the RAW file that you can use if you ever need it.

You can adjust pretty much anything with a JPG that you can adjust with a RAW file. The only problem is that you've already thrown a lot of information away when the camera converted the RAW file to a JPG. The JPG is sort of like the cliff notes version of your picture. It's enough to tell the story, but it could be missing key bits of information that you might decide to use later.

If you do shoot JPG, don't repeatedly edit and save JPG files. Every time you do that, the picture degrades in quality. If you are going to shoot JPG, save your edits as PSD files or something that is losslessly compressed. Then you can make changes to your hearts content and just output a JPG file at the end for posting online.

One other option for editing JPGs is to use a parametric editor like Lightroom. Lightroom doesn't really edit your file. Instead, it just saves the instructions for the changes you made. The original file is still there and hasn't been further compressed.

Alright, let me chime in here. Been lurking and learning....

This is a lot of heavy information on this thread for us newbies (or semi-newbies--does one year mean you're still a newbie? Because I feel like it)!!

Let me ask a few questions to Mark and/or anyone else experienced on here....

I've been watching all of this too with the 50 & 30 mm lenses....I have a Pentax 100D with the kit lens and a 50-200. Going to THE WORLD in September.

I've always known I'd have to get the 50mm one day, but I see that GDAD is getting some SPECTACULAR night shots (and yes, I know it's GDAD...) with his 30mm.

So, what do you guys suggest? I know the prices, etc., but if you could ONLY HAVE ONE LENS which one would you go with? I know the difference is focal length, but as for other factors, what is your gut feeling?

Also, I've seen that Groucho and Mark both mention Lightroom. Are you guys using this with or instead of PS? Just curious...Is there a difference besides the way they save images?

...and Mark, what is PSD? Maybe I'm just a little brain-dead this a.m. and have forgotten!

Never used RAW because of the space it takes up, and I guess I don't edit as much as you guys....BUT did like the shot (was it Groucho who took it?) shot right into the sun and then EDITED back to a usable picture form BECAUSE it was taken in RAW? (Whew! Did that make sense?)

Okay, gotta run and get everyone up and ready for school.....check back in w/you guys after I get home from school/work!

 

[boBQuincy]

...When you convert the RAW file to a JPG on your computer, you're just doing what the camera would have done. All you've done is wasted more space (on the RAW file) and time. All you've gained is a bunch of extra information in the RAW file that you can use if you ever need it...

Yes, but...
one fine point although an important one, when the camera converts RAW to JPG it uses software and lookup tables written by an engineer, when we convert RAW to JPG we use our artistic talent to get the best possible JPG. We decide what information to throw away instead of the camera using it's canned routines, and ours should be better than (or at the very least equal to) what the camera turns out.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I know the difference is focal length, but as for other factors, what is your gut feeling?

I think this is what I was trying to get at as well (in deciding between the 30mm f1.8 and the 50mm f1.8).

Would there be much of a difference between the two, or, put another way, what would the differences be between the two?

And Disney is one thing (where of course, everyone wants to get those coveted low light shots, and I assume the 30mm has a slight advantage for that??), but what about where you'll probably be using it more often, at home for those everyday shots?

Anyone have similar pictures using both?

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I think this is what I was trying to get at as well (in deciding between the 30mm f1.8 and the 50mm f1.8).

Would there be much of a difference between the two, or, put another way, what would the differences be between the two?

And Disney is one thing (where of course, everyone wants to get those coveted low light shots, and I assume the 30mm has a slight advantage for that??), but what about where you'll probably be using it more often, at home for those everyday shots?

Anyone have similar pictures using both?

In comparing the 30mm f1.8 and the 50mm f1.8 for low light, it is the f1.8 part that is most relevant. A lower f-number means that the opening in the lens is wider and so it lets in more light. Since both of these lenses have the same f-number (f1.8), they let in the same amount of light and perform equally well in low light situations.

The difference is the focal length (30mm vs 50mm). The focal length determines how zoomed in (magnified) the subject is. A 50mm lens makes things look almost twice as large as a 30mm lens.

Imagine standing in one place and taking a picture of Cinderella's Castle with the 30mm lens. Now let's say that you cut out the middle 60% of the picture and enlarged that picture. That's what the 50mm picture would look like. You no longer see the parts that you cut away, but the parts that you do see look bigger.

There is one difference in how they would work in low light. When taking a picture in low light, motion is the biggest problem. That can be the little motion in trying to hold a camera steady, the movement of your subject, or even the movement of your ride vehicle. The lower the light, the longer it will take for your camera to capture the picture. During that time, the more movement you have, the blurrier things look. The 30mm has a small advantage here because it doesn't magnify things as much. That means it also doesn't magnify movement as much. Still, I wouldn't make that much of a decision criteria.

In choosing between the two, it comes down to whether you want something that shows a bigger area or something that shows a smaller area with more magnification.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

it is the f1.8 part that is most relevant

Darn, I knew that and I meant to incorporate it into my question.

I guess I'm trying to figure out what will work best for me for both of those types of pictures, Disney and home. I will probably only buy one or the other, not both.

The 30mm has a small advantage here because it doesn't magnify things as much. That means it also doesn't magnify movement as much.

I think this is what I was thinking intuitively. However, I do tend to like tighter shots. And of course, for me, you have to throw in the 4/3 piece here as well, which I believe will give me even more magnification. Maybe the 30mm, in this case, would work well for the types of shots I want.

OK, now I've confused myself. The 30mm will give me a higher magnification, like (but not exactly) the 50mm would, right?

 

[Code]

I've always known I'd have to get the 50mm one day, but I see that GDAD is getting some SPECTACULAR night shots (and yes, I know it's GDAD...) with his 30mm.

So, what do you guys suggest? I know the prices, etc., but if you could ONLY HAVE ONE LENS which one would you go with? I know the difference is focal length, but as for other factors, what is your gut feeling?

The Pentax 50mm is f/1.4 and the Sigma 30mm is also f/1.4 so besides optical performance differences (which I'm sure exist but can't comment on) and high speed focusing VS standard, it really does all come down to the focal length.

It's easy enough to mount up your standard zoom, set it to 30mm and walk around with it for a bit, then do the same at 50mm and see how it compares for yourself.

Also, I've seen that Groucho and Mark both mention Lightroom. Are you guys using this with or instead of PS? Just curious...Is there a difference besides the way they save images?

Lightroom is not an advanced editing tool and is not a Photoshop replacement (though it takes a small step in that direction in v2.0). They both use the same engine for working with RAW files (Adobe Camera Raw) and so are evenly capable in terms of RAW, but Lightroom is more about managing your workflow and photo library, leaving the advanced editing to PS.

Never used RAW because of the space it takes up, and I guess I don't edit as much as you guys....BUT did like the shot (was it Groucho who took it?) shot right into the sun and then EDITED back to a usable picture form BECAUSE it was taken in RAW? (Whew! Did that make sense?)

RAW can mean very good things for overexposed photos, but there are limitations to how far it can be stretched (depending on what camera you are using). The thing you will notice on Groucho's EE shot is that the area around the sun is completely desaturated. This has to do with the level at which each color channel clips on the sensor. But then again, I'd definitely rather have an awesome photo with a small problem that only a fraction of people are going to notice rather than a photo for the trash Just pointing this out to demonstrate a point, I guess... no bash on your photo Groucho

 

[Code]

I think this is what I was thinking intuitively. However, I do tend to like tighter shots. And of course, for me, you have to throw in the 4/3 piece here as well, which I believe will give me even more magnification. Maybe the 30mm, in this case, would work well for the types of shots I want.

OK, now I've confused myself. The 30mm will give me a higher magnification, like (but not exactly) the 50mm would, right?

The 30mm on 4/3 is 60mm equiv.
50mm on Pentax/Nikon/Sony is 75mm equiv, and 80mm on Canon.

So the 30mm on 4/3 is still a bit wider than 50mm on C/N/P/S.

 

[Dcanoli]

In comparing the 30mm f1.8 and the 50mm f1.8 for low light, it is the f1.8 part that is most relevant. A lower f-number means that the opening in the lens is wider and so it lets in more light. Since both of these lenses have the same f-number (f1.8), they let in the same amount of light and perform equally well in low light situations.

The Pentax 50mm is f/1.4 and the Sigma 30mm is also f/1.4 so besides optical performance differences (which I'm sure exist but can't comment on) and high speed focusing VS standard, it really does all come down to the focal length.

So...I never even considered the different manufacturer's lenses and f-numbers.

So (again)....are you saying that Nikon's 30 & 50mms are f1.8 and Pentax and Sigma's are f/1.4?

Does that mean that the Pentax and Sigma lenses let in more light and might be slightly more advantageous for low-light situations?

Don't know...just asking to see I'm getting this right...