[Snake]

To take pictures of moving sporting events you must pre-track with the subject, already moving the camera at the same speed of motion of the subject so when you push the release you will reduce blur.

Remember the inverse shutter speed to motion law - at any focal length the lowest you want to have your shutter speed is the inverse that focal length. So for a 50mm lens 1/50th a second is the lowest you can handhold the camera and not show shake, according to the classic formula. For moving subjects there is a complex formula factoring in angle of motion versus camera including focal length, but if you wish stop action simply go with the fastest shutter speed you can manage. To assist in this either Av (aperture priority) or Tv (shutter priority) modes will work best, with Tv being (for sports) the most preferred. You set your minimum shutter speed and if their is enough light the camera will modify aperture to come up with the correct exposure, varying it as light changes. This way (as long as there is enough aperture range) none of your shots will blur because you have the speed "locked in".

For digital or slide film it is always best to underexpose rather than overexpose. For negative films it is better to overexpose rather than underexpose. It is common practice for slide shooters (especially Kodachrome uses) to dial in 1/3 stop underexposure on the auto exposure compensation to force this, but each camera / user combo is different. The reason for those rules - over / under for each film type - is that to go the other way than the film likes means you subtract detail from the photograph due to burn out of areas. Going the "right" way adds detail in the highlights but blocks up the shadows more, which can be corrected with proper post processing.

If you have a built-in flash (cannot be removed or bounced) and want to get better looking shots generally dialing in flash exposure compensation of negative will help. By doing so you are telling the camera to add more ambient light into the photograph, subtracting flash light, making for a more natural-looking photograph. If you can the best looking flash photographs have remote flash (off to the side / much higher than the built-in jobs), diffused or controlled output (bounce cube / umbrella / bounce card / fill card / light box / barn doors / diffuser screen / scrim / softbox / tent / dome, etc) or, preferably, both.

That should give you a clue right there - how many different ways they've devised of controlling (that is, reducing) the amount of artificial light photographers use. Direct artificial lighting is very harsh and your job, when you want a natural look, is to make it as indirect as possible. Natural lighting - sunlight - used to make the highest-quality photos ends up the most indirect, soft. You want to try to duplicate that pattern if you can. At least start by reducing your flash output (had to do that myself on my camera - just who decided upon these flash exposures?? A blind man??)

 

[KenW]

Thanks for all the tips. I think a night of practice has me on the right track....
Dimitris, the tip on the white balance eliminated that reddish hue. Right now, my biggest struggle is with the lighting. Think I've got doing the stationary gear shots down. Now the outdoor challenge awaits. Getting a kick out of this! Care to critique this shot?

 

[jpr703]

Setting the White Balance manually makes a huge difference when using a digital camera.

 

[KenW]

Man, that was HUGE for my shots. Spent the morning retaking a lot of older shots and getting rid of the "lessons" hence the trial pics above are gone as I had exceeded the photobucket maximum. Tried some shots last night at the soccer game and while the action shots worked okay, I had trouble with the subject on the move at times. The real problem was dusk. I didn't adjust for that and it got me with the last few. Learning is the fun but sometimes frustrating part.

 

[GoRedwings19]

KenW>That is a great shot. I like how you use a wood surface for the shot with the rs-1's

 

[KenW]

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoRedwings19 KenW>That is a great shot. I like how you use a wood surface for the shot with the rs-1's

Thanks Mike. I'll have to admit to a good bit of tweaking and finally getting the custom white balance worked out as leading to it. Lot's of frustration with lighting. I'm considering having a special bench/surface with lighting for gear and item shots. Went outdoors a bit today and didn't have the same success. The colors in the bright sunlight looked washed out and the frustration returned. Oh well, the chase is what counts, right??

Overall, it's been a good week for me. Got the HP-2's and RS-1's plus picked up the Shure E5C's. Now the continuing wait for the amp. Soon, very soon I hear.

 

[Dimitris]

Now thats more like it!!!You are on track of becoming a still life pro!Keep up with it and enjoy!It wasnt difficult after all. I dont think i would take a better shot.If you have any money left from headphone equipment you could experiment with a macro lense.

www.photo.net is one of the best sites for photography. Try looking at other peoples macro photos. You might get some new ideas.

 

[MD1032]

Tripods are a key, also lighting helps. I am able to take much better pictures in daylight with a tripod than at night with a flash.

 

[mulveling]

Ken,
Awesome job on that last shot! You learn fast. Makes me want to give this gear photography thing another try, hope I can do as well.

Offtopic - BTW, what do you think of the hp-2 vs. rs-1?

 

[KenW]

As yet, I haven't been able to make a true comparison. Stupidly, I sold my HR-2 without having it's successor in place so my listening is via the karma and I don't think that's quite adequate for a good comparison.

 

[bangraman]

I find that a white background is my friend. This way, I can shoot in a variety of lighting conditions and still 'tweak it up'. For example, this was shot under one single 60w equivalent light, about 2m away and oh yes, light also coming from a desk light about 3m away. I shot with a fairly wide aperture and slow shutter speed, along with flash. Then a very quick bit of work in Photoshop. Usually I'd shoot under 'assisted natural light' but I don't always need it.

 

[KenW]

Very nice, indeed! A white background certainly does look to be solid choice for a background but I'm thinking of something that won't distract too much from the subject I'm photographing yet provide some degree of warmth or perhaps a better way of saying it is I'd like to spice it up a bit without being overwhelming. Right now, a wooden table seems to be about the only realistic choice I have yet with all the tile and surfaces at my local home depot, I should be able to come up with something. Just need to find a few minutes to run by there. Of course, once I get there, I usually spend way too much time and money. Always something I need or think that I might need.

 

[The Quality Guru]

I think the two most crucial elements to good product photography are

1) Lighting. Use a diffuse light source. Whether this means using a softbox in the studio or available window lighting, one will always achieve better results with diffuse lighting and its softer shadows. Avoid harsher, hard light from on-camera strobes, with the exception of a lens-mountable ring-flash, which would provide a very suitable result.

2) Backdrop. Use a backdrop which is suitable to the item being photgraphed. Most of the time, white seems to work best. Ideally, a curved, seamless white backdrop looks most professional. However, since most people don't sell enough to justify such an investment, a much cheaper way to achieve an acceptable result is to use a shallow depth of field (assuming you've already invested in a lens which can make use of the aperture) to blur the background and leave the subject in focus. If the aperture cannot be controlled, find a suitable background that is not distracting.

Oh, and don't forget about color balance. If you mix light sources, such as on-camera flash and indoor tungsten lighting, you will likely have an orangish tint to your photograph (this can be seen on bangraman's photo above, where it is obvious that tungsten indoor lighting was mixed with daylight balanced flash). An easy way to prevent this is to use only one type of light source; use either only indoor light or only outdoor light. The exception is with outdoor light; you can use flash (if so, use it sparingly) because it has the same color temperature as daylight.

 

[The Quality Guru]

Here's an example of a product shot I took of my HP-2; it's very plain and boring, but it utilizes both (1) diffuse lighting (I just used window light on a cloudy day) and a (2) backdrop which does not distract from the main subject. Notice the shadow is rather soft; this is an important characteristic of diffuse lighting.

 

[commando]

Settings vary hugely depending on what you're trying to achieve. Do you want the whole thing in focus, or do you want a creative "soft focus" shallow depth of field effect? For shallow DOF use aperture priority mode (Av on Canon cameras) and set the F number low.

Lighting is absolutely key to all photography. All you're doing after all is capturing light. Sunlight is usually too harsh, it increases the dynamic range, and digital cameras don't have as much dynamics range as films to start with. A polarizing filter can help a lot, in fact they're basically essential for photographs taken in bright sunlight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KenW Thanks. I got a Rebel for xmas and the two lenses were the canon efs 18-55mm and the 75-300mm. Any suggestions on a macro for my setup?

Both of those are cheap consumer grade lenses. I use a Canon 100mm F2.8 USM macro, it's a great lens, very fast and very sharp. I'll get extension tubes when I get around to it. You should also consider a 50mm F1.8 II lens, it's only $70 and it's excellent for the price. It's perfect for low light work, just be careful with the narrow DOF, use a tripod or monopod if you can.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KenW Okay, I've made a couple of attempts. Suggestions on how I can improve? The first shot is my attempt as an uninformed newbie. The second is taking some of the tips I've received so far. Btw, any tips on fast moving subjects like ball players on the field in action?? Yeah, I should take a class but I need the readers digest version and I'm lazy or far to dedicated to listening to spare the time!

I can't see the shots. For fast moving subjects just use the sports mode on your camera, if you don't have one, put it in time priority mode and set the shutter speed to somewhere between 1/250th and 1/500th of a second. Sports photography is hard with the best camera, with a baby point and shoot camera it very even more difficult.

I did an evening "intro to digital photography" class a while back, 2 hours per week for 8 weeks. It was invaluable to learn the basics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpr703 Setting the White Balance manually makes a huge difference when using a digital camera.

It makes a big difference when you use a cheap digital camera

Here's a couple of shots from my gallery. I took them with a Canon 300D (aka digital rebel), a Canon 100mm macro lens, and a 500EX external flash with a stofen diffuser on it. The cans were sitting on white pieces of paper in my lounge. They were reasonably quick and dirty shots, they came out ok. I often use photoshop to drop out the shadows, I did on the pic of my camera (see my gallery). I've since upgraded to a Canon 20D, which is a veeeeery nice camera.



Narrow DOF for creative effect (F4)

Wider DOF to get everything in (F6.3)

Hope my tips help, i'll watch this thread in case there are any questions