need to add a wide (& all purpose) lens for canon rebel xt

[pierces]

I do use IS when not on a tripod. I think my focus problem could because the aperture is too open and I need to make it smaller (i think the correct term is 'stop it down'?). I am possibly wrong on this...and if so...please enlighten me!

 

Thanks for the nice feedback. I appreciate it. I just want to get better. I am not looking to be the next famous national geographic photographer, I just want to take decent shots of the family while on vacation!

 

As for shutter speed...I have now put that info on all the pictures. But if you look at each picture you can click on the over on the right of the picture lick on the small box "more info" to get shutter speed and other pertinent data.

 

Photography is turning into a very time consuming hobby :)

 

 

Aperture priority is probably the simplest way to control your camera. Set the camera on A (or whatever Canon calls it..Av?) and use the control dial to control the aperture. Most lenses are sharpest when stopped down a bit from wide open and usually hit their peak at around f/8. Past about f/16 they start losing sharpness again due to diffraction through the tiny aperture. This doesn't mean the pictures will be crappy at f/2.8 or f/32, they just won't be at optimum sharpness. In aperture priority, your camera will calculate the shutter speed for you, so watch for the slow shutter warning. If it comes on, open up the aperture of increase the ISO (or both) as needed. Using aperture priority allows you a lot of control over depth of field too.

 

In Peterson's book, when he speaks about focusing using distance settings, he is referring to the etched focus distance numbers on the lens. On older lenses before Minolta spoiled us with autofocus, they had scales that indicated depth of field a different apertures. You would get a fair idea that, at f/11, things would be in focus from perhaps 15 feet to infinity or from 3 feet to 8 feet. most modern lenses no longer have depth of field scales. On your xt, you can use the depth of field (DOF from now on) preview button to get an idea of what will be in focus. Modern cameras (1960s on :D )meter and focus at the widest aperture and close the aperture down to where you set it at the moment of exposure. Pressing the DOF button closes down the aperture to let you see the effect.

 

Hope that helped.

 

Dave

 

BTW, I did like the photos!

[bob16946]

Cathy - It looks like shutter speed is the problem. I really like your deck picture taken at 1/100. The picture to the left is blury at 1/2 sec - I assume this was handheld and is way too slow to avoid camera shake. Handheld shots should be taken at 1/60 sec or faster. With IS, and if you have a steady hand, maybe you can get away with 1/30 sec. Anything slower should be on a tripod. Also, with zoom lenses, you need even faster shutter speeds. One rule of thumb - the shutter speed should at least match the focal length. For example, with your 28-135mm, if you are zoomed out to 135mm, your shutter speed should be faster than 1/135 sec (i.e. 1/160 or better yet 1/200 sec). There is a skill to holding a camera steady that takes some practice. The 3rd and 5th picture (taken at f/22 and 1/2 sec) would look much better with a wider aperture (around f/8) which would have allowed a faster shutter speed. Your 2 best pictures (last 2) were taken at f/8 and shutter speeds at 1/200 and faster. Same said for your nice sunset picture. This is no coincidence. The pictures you are disappointed in were either taken at a very wide aperture (around f/2.8) or a slow shutter speed.

 

One last comment (excuse the rambling!) - I see you use a polarizing filter. These work great under the proper conditions but you will lose 1-2 stops with your exposure when using one which may cause your shutter speed to drop too low. However, don't be hesitant to bump up your ISO setting to increase your shutter speed when needed. You can probably get away with an ISO as high as 400 with landscapes without too much noise. It depends on the camera.

 

Happy shooting.

 

Bob

[cathydev]

Dave and Bob,

 

Great advice. Thank you! I am heading south tomorrow to run some errands, thankfully it's very scenic along the Lewiston grade so I will bring my camera and hopefully snap a few good pictures using the tips you both gave me! I'll hopefully get a chance to upload them tomorrow evening.

 

with much gratitude,

Cathy

[FinelyCruising]

I am going to read these messages a few times for it all to potentially sink in. I too was wondering how in the world do I get the 'constant' focus that was described in those pages of Understanding Exposure.

 

The tip about the lens length to shutter speed is going to be very valuable to me and I can't thank everyone enough for taking the time to have these discussions.

 

...Cathy, yes, I agree this is an intensely time consuming hobby. :)

[pierces]

Cathy - It looks like shutter speed is the problem. I really like your deck picture taken at 1/100. The picture to the left is blury at 1/2 sec - I assume this was handheld and is way too slow to avoid camera shake. Handheld shots should be taken at 1/60 sec or faster. With IS, and if you have a steady hand, maybe you can get away with 1/30 sec. Anything slower should be on a tripod. Also, with zoom lenses, you need even faster shutter speeds. One rule of thumb - the shutter speed should at least match the focal length. For example, with your 28-135mm, if you are zoomed out to 135mm, your shutter speed should be faster than 1/135 sec (i.e. 1/160 or better yet 1/200 sec). There is a skill to holding a camera steady that takes some practice. The 3rd and 5th picture (taken at f/22 and 1/2 sec) would look much better with a wider aperture (around f/8) which would have allowed a faster shutter speed. Your 2 best pictures (last 2) were taken at f/8 and shutter speeds at 1/200 and faster. Same said for your nice sunset picture. This is no coincidence. The pictures you are disappointed in were either taken at a very wide aperture (around f/2.8) or a slow shutter speed.

 

One last comment (excuse the rambling!) - I see you use a polarizing filter. These work great under the proper conditions but you will lose 1-2 stops with your exposure when using one which may cause your shutter speed to drop too low. However, don't be hesitant to bump up your ISO setting to increase your shutter speed when needed. You can probably get away with an ISO as high as 400 with landscapes without too much noise. It depends on the camera.

 

Happy shooting.

 

Bob

 

So, Bob...you've taken pictures before as well? ;)

 

Good advice sir!

 

Dave

[pierces]

I am going to read these messages a few times for it all to potentially sink in. I too was wondering how in the world do I get the 'constant' focus that was described in those pages of Understanding Exposure.

 

The tip about the lens length to shutter speed is going to be very valuable to me and I can't thank everyone enough for taking the time to have these discussions.

 

...Cathy, yes, I agree this is an intensely time consuming hobby. :)

 

Check out my article about adding lenses to you system. It covers most of what we've discussed here including depth of field (with pictures!) and the 1/f rule.

 

Might be helpful.

 

http://www.pptphoto.com/ArticlePages/AddingLenses.htm

 

Dave

[bob16946]

So, Bob...you've taken pictures before as well? ;)

 

Good advice sir!

 

Dave

 

Thanks, Dave. I've enjoyed digital photography for the past few years, but have been more serious in the past year. Some of my work is posted on www.randbphoto.com. I've only been registered in this forum since last week after my wife and I just booked our first cruise. I've really enjoyed reading your posts - its helped me with planning on our Alaska trip. For example, I was not planning on taking a tripod, but after reading your comments, I'm now shopping for a travel tripod. I'll be sure to check out your Velbon model. I'll keep checking back for more tips!

[bob16946]

So, Bob...you've taken pictures before as well? ;)

 

Good advice sir!

 

Dave

 

Thanks, Dave. I've enjoyed digital photography for the past few years, but have been more serious in the past year. Some of my work is posted on www.randbphoto.com. I've only been registered in this forum since last week after my wife and I just booked our first cruise. I've really enjoyed reading your posts - its helped me with planning on our Alaska trip. For example, I was not planning on taking a tripod, but after reading your comments, I'm now shopping for a travel tripod. I'll be sure to check out your Velbon model. I'll keep checking back for more tips!

[bob16946]

Check out my article about adding lenses to you system. It covers most of what we've discussed here including depth of field (with pictures!) and the 1/f rule.

 

Might be helpful.

 

http://www.pptphoto.com/ArticlePages/AddingLenses.htm

 

Dave

 

Great web site, Dave. I've bookmarked it as a photography resource.

[bob16946]

I am going to read these messages a few times for it all to potentially sink in. I too was wondering how in the world do I get the 'constant' focus that was described in those pages of Understanding Exposure.

 

The tip about the lens length to shutter speed is going to be very valuable to me and I can't thank everyone enough for taking the time to have these discussions.

 

...Cathy, yes, I agree this is an intensely time consuming hobby. :)

 

You're very welcome. I, too, find these forums very helpful. I've learned so much from others advice.

[bob16946]

Dave and Bob,

 

Great advice. Thank you! I am heading south tomorrow to run some errands, thankfully it's very scenic along the Lewiston grade so I will bring my camera and hopefully snap a few good pictures using the tips you both gave me! I'll hopefully get a chance to upload them tomorrow evening.

 

with much gratitude,

Cathy

 

Cathy - Let us know when they are posted. I would love to look at them.

[photodoodle]

Hi Bob16946,

I really enjoyed your website! I especially liked the flamingo portrait and the basket of shells.

[bob16946]

Hi Bob16946,

I really enjoyed your website! I especially liked the flamingo portrait and the basket of shells.

 

Thank you. I have to admit, however, that those 2 pictures were taken by my partner, Roman. I'll be sure to pass along the compliment.

[Suzieb]

I thought I would drop a $.01 comment, sense there have been some good comments sofar. I do like the portrait shot. The use of the lens and min f-setting (f2.8) gave it a short depth of view (dof) and allowed the subject to be the main point of view with nothing to distract from it. Also I like the close up picture of the flowers, again good use of dof, and I like your use of the camera. For a lot of pictures the camera needs to be somewhere else besides just above the shoulders. You laying down to get the picture worked.

I liked your experiment on the street at evening for the tail light effect. Keep working on it and you'll get what you want.

 

Good Work

 

[cathydev]

Suzie, thanks for input. I do like the portraits done with the 2.8 as well. The blurred background is a great effect.

 

Bob, I have posted pictures from my adventures today. I live in Eastern Washington and these pictures were taken on the drive from Pullman, WA to Lewiston Idaho through the Palouse and down the Lewiston Grade. It's very pretty and I think I did a much better job with these landscape photos, but even so....it's even prettier in person.

 

Dave, i've read the articles...thank you...very helpful!

 

I am still experimenting with things. On the links below you will see a few pictures where all I did was change the white balance setting from auto to cloudy or shade. It's interesting to see the effect. I think cloudy is a bit too orange for landscapes but I tried to get creative and I'm pleased. I had the polarizing filter on my 28-135 lens but the rented lens (17-55) was as is because I don't have a filter that fits it.

 

Also, one thing to note is that I have not touched up the pictures in anyway. I think some could benefit from some editing, but to learn at this point, I'm posting 'as taken'.

 

I would have had them up sooner if we didn't have a baseketball injury after I got home. I have pictures of that too :)

 

http://picasaweb.google.com/smiemszoo/Random2

http://picasaweb.google.com/smiemszoo/BasketballDislocatedFinger

 

If someone is willing, I still need a bit of help on how to get a rolling landscape to look better...the first picture for example looks a bit blah...maybe a filter? totally different settings? or a scene like that doesn't photograph well????

 

PS - I hope you don't get too squeamish looking at the baseketball photos!

[pierces]

Suzie, thanks for input. I do like the portraits done with the 2.8 as well. The blurred background is a great effect.

 

Brace yourself..another new word: The out-of-focus area of a photo is called the Bokeh. A lens with smooth, pleasing OOF areas has "good bokeh". If a lens uses a six-blade aperture and the edjes of the blades are mostly straight, you will get harsh, angular transitions from the in-focus subject. A nine-blade aperture with curved edges will generally provide a gentle transition and smooth gradients between out-of-focus objects.

 

 

Dave, i've read the articles...thank you...very helpful!

 

Thank you!

 

I am still experimenting with things. On the links below you will see a few pictures where all I did was change the white balance setting from auto to cloudy or shade. It's interesting to see the effect. I think cloudy is a bit too orange for landscapes but I tried to get creative and I'm pleased. I had the polarizing filter on my 28-135 lens but the rented lens (17-55) was as is because I don't have a filter that fits it.

 

Also, one thing to note is that I have not touched up the pictures in anyway. I think some could benefit from some editing, but to learn at this point, I'm posting 'as taken'.

 

I agree that you did a lot better!

 

Note: You can manually set the white balance as well. Look it up in the manual and give it a try. Posting "as taken" is a good way to get help since it lets folks see what you saw after you took the picture.

 

 

 

If someone is willing, I still need a bit of help on how to get a rolling landscape to look better...the first picture for example looks a bit blah...maybe a filter? totally different settings? or a scene like that doesn't photograph well????

 

If you are referring to the one with the barn and the expanse of field. That would be more of a perspective or position issue. In my opinion (if you want it) it shows a barn in an expanse of green, but doesn't show the "expanse". A wider view or a panorama crop might have worked better.

 

Here's a shot of Denali park which has a lot of not a darn thing for miles. The panorama helps get that point across.

 

Another way is to back off or go wide and include some foreground to give a different sense of scale:

 

If you want a critique on a specific photo. Number them or link it here directly (PicasaWeb supports linking).

 

PS - I hope you don't get too squeamish looking at the baseketball photos!

 

A son in football for 12 years...I'll be ok!

 

You've got a good start. Keep at it and keep in mind that the most important qualification for a photo to be considered "good" is that you like it.

 

Dave

 

PS. look up "rule of thirds"...there will be a quiz! ;)

[bob16946]

Cathy - Great job on your pictures today. I really like the church and the Tidewater pictures. Very effective use of the polarizing filter. I agree that your first picture doesn't really stand out, maybe because the others are so good in comparison. A couple of comments about landscapes in general. The time of day they are shot can have a big impact on how vibrant the colors look. Landscapes look best early or late in the daylight hours. In the middle of a sunny day, landscapes tend to look somewhat "washed out". The position of the sun also plays a big role. As you seem to know from your pictures, polarizing filters work best when the sun is 90 degrees from the lens. I don't know if either of these issues impacted your first picture.

 

If you are planning on shooting a lot of landscapes, you may want to consider adding an ND gradient filter to your collection. Not having one yet myself, I don't have any practical experience to offer. Perhaps Dave will have some input as to what would be appropriate. I know I could use some advice on this and would like to hear his comments.

 

Thanks for posting - you're doing a great job.

 

Bob

[Suzieb]

Me and the wife sat down and looked at some of the pictures, and we like your work on 7 and 8. With you playing with white balance. Not sure of the condition at the time, but we both liked the one with the white balance set to shade. I thought the wheels looked better, rusty, and the wife said the auto setting had to much cyan. Also I think the barn was not that white!

Also Bob's comment about the time of day when shooting landscapes, is something I learned early on. Early in the morning and and hour or two before sunset, gets you the best color. And Pierces comment about using panoramas for landscapes would add a lot to your first two.

Also I did like to barn in the field shot, because it is simple

 

Good Shooting

 

Val & Suzie

[FinelyCruising]

Looks like the price of the 10-22 just went up a bit. :(