Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Palm trees & sunshine!
Joined
·
24,200 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
MB1 did a post on this last year so I'll try not to dupe any pics he posted in that thread....

There's a little bit of a learning curve coming from the point-and-shoot to the DSLR. All of the shots were done in Program mode and most were taken with the flash off as it seemed like it was washing everything out. I'm very glad I bought the wide angle lens (18mm-50mm).


Question for the pros: How much processing do you normally do to your photos? I didn't realize until I got home that I didn't set my white balance from auto to incandescent and I probably should have taken most of the shots at 1600 instead of 800. I did a little touching up on the levels in Photoshop for some of the pics but on a few I kind of liked the the skewed WB and under exposure.

Anyway, here are the pics:
 

·
scruffy nerf herder
Joined
·
4,484 Posts
What is up with that P-38?

Looks like it is rusting away... Is that intended via paint/camoflauge scheme? It just looks kind of nasty seeing the other ones.

One more question, is that first one a Corsair?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,270 Posts
I like the SR-71. When I was in the Air Force in the mid to late 70s I was stationed at Beale AFB in nothern Ca. The SRs and U2s were the planes that were there. Actually when I first got there we had SRs and B52s. Within a month or so of me getting there they traded Davis-Monthan for the U2s sending them the B52s. I never found the U2s to be too exciting.
 

·
Palm trees & sunshine!
Joined
·
24,200 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
funknuggets said:
Looks like it is rusting away... Is that intended via paint/camoflauge scheme? It just looks kind of nasty seeing the other ones.

One more question, is that first one a Corsair?
The first one is a Corsair. The P-38 isn't rusting -- the brown is part of the paint scheme but it does look like it's seen some miles. Lot's of scrapes in the paint. It has a rustic look to it.
 

·
Palm trees & sunshine!
Joined
·
24,200 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
vol245 said:
I like the SR-71. When I was in the Air Force in the mid to late 70s I was stationed at Beale AFB in nothern Ca. The SRs and U2s were the planes that were there. Actually when I first got there we had SRs and B52s. Within a month or so of me getting there they traded Davis-Monthan for the U2s sending them the B52s. I never found the U2s to be too exciting.
The SR-71 is the simply awesome. I've always heard about how the fuel leaks out of it like crazy when it's on the ground. The pic I posted is reduced but you can kinda make out the stains on the paint from the leakage. It's easier to see in the original though.

The thing that always get's me is the size of the Space Shuttle -- it's huge.
 

·
Polka Power
Joined
·
1,346 Posts
KenB said:
MB1 did a post on this last year so I'll try not to dupe any pics he posted in that thread....

There's a little bit of a learning curve coming from the point-and-shoot to the DSLR. All of the shots were done in Program mode and most were taken with the flash off as it seemed like it was washing everything out. I'm very glad I bought the wide angle lens (18mm-50mm).


Question for the pros: How much processing do you normally do to your photos? I didn't realize until I got home that I didn't set my white balance from auto to incandescent and I probably should have taken most of the shots at 1600 instead of 800. I did a little touching up on the levels in Photoshop for some of the pics but on a few I kind of liked the the skewed WB and under exposure.

Anyway, here are the pics:
Nice! They look good. As far as processing....sometimes I do alot...sometimes not so much. It really depends on the situation. If you are shooting jpegs your really want to get it as close as possible when you shoot it. They aren't as flexable as the RAW files and you can get funkyness if you try to mess with a jpeg too much. If you feel like your up to it, I highly recommend shooting RAW. It seems you used Photoshop CS. When you open a RAW in CS it opens a new window called adobe raw. Very powerful for exposure, white balance and other things. Shooting raw you don't really have to worry about white balance when shooting, as you can change it to anything later with no quality loss at all.
Just try to get the exposure right down the middle.

For ISO I normally keep it as low as possible while keeping a decent shutter speed so I don't get blur (unless you want that). If you start noticing blur when you don't want it, it's most likely too slow of a shutter speed. You can goto "file" then "file info" in photoshop to see what the camera was set too when you took the pics. Take note of the shutter speed and if you had problems...try to up it next time by using a wider apeture or higher ISO. Longer lens focal lenths, moving objects, and shakey hands all make a difference...so I don't think there is an absolute rule for this...just see what works for you. A lot of times if I think the shot is iffy, I'll shoot at a lower ISO for quality, but take multiple frames of the same thing if I can. Raises the chances of not having camera shake in one of the images.

You may find that AV or TV modes will give you a bit more control. I shoot AV mode most of the time, setting the apeture to a setting that will give me apropriate depth of field...check the shutter speed...then adjust iso as need.

Hrm....I could go on but don't want to bore anyone. Just have fun with it!
 

·
Palm trees & sunshine!
Joined
·
24,200 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
ChuckUni said:
Nice! They look good. As far as processing....sometimes I do alot...sometimes not so much. It really depends on the situation. If you are shooting jpegs your really want to get it as close as possible when you shoot it. They aren't as flexable as the RAW files and you can get funkyness if you try to mess with a jpeg too much. If you feel like your up to it, I highly recommend shooting RAW. It seems you used Photoshop CS. When you open a RAW in CS it opens a new window called adobe raw. Very powerful for exposure, white balance and other things. Shooting raw you don't really have to worry about white balance when shooting, as you can change it to anything later with no quality loss at all.
Just try to get the exposure right down the middle.

For ISO I normally keep it as low as possible while keeping a decent shutter speed so I don't get blur (unless you want that). If you start noticing blur when you don't want it, it's most likely too slow of a shutter speed. You can goto "file" then "file info" in photoshop to see what the camera was set too when you took the pics. Take note of the shutter speed and if you had problems...try to up it next time by using a wider apeture or higher ISO. Longer lens focal lenths, moving objects, and shakey hands all make a difference...so I don't think there is an absolute rule for this...just see what works for you. A lot of times if I think the shot is iffy, I'll shoot at a lower ISO for quality, but take multiple frames of the same thing if I can. Raises the chances of not having camera shake in one of the images.

You may find that AV or TV modes will give you a bit more control. I shoot AV mode most of the time, setting the apeture to a setting that will give me apropriate depth of field...check the shutter speed...then adjust iso as need.

Hrm....I could go on but don't want to bore anyone. Just have fun with it!
Thanks for the info. I've been playing around with AV and TV modes. The nicest thing, I think, is being able to shoot 20 shots of the same thing (the wine glass in front of me, for example) with various settings then download them immediately to the laptop to see what each setting "did".

Today, I think I did about 250 shots. Of those, half were keepers and half again were what I would call "good" shots. The lighting in the museum made things challenging for me to say the least.

This is one I took of my daughter yesterday...
 

·
Cat 6
Joined
·
4,695 Posts
KenB said:
Question for the pros: How much processing do you normally do to your photos? I didn't realize until I got home that I didn't set my white balance from auto to incandescent and I probably should have taken most of the shots at 1600 instead of 800. I did a little touching up on the levels in Photoshop for some of the pics but on a few I kind of liked the the skewed WB and under exposure.
That's a tough one...I generally bring a cheapo white balance card but I also shoot RAW so changing white balance is a snap. As far as the amount of post processing goes...well it really depends on the shot. If I nailed it then I don't need to do any...I wish that was more often. :) I'd say you'll end up post processing more often than not with a good camera but I truly believe it's because most folks pixel peep on more expensive cams than on p&s cams.
 

·
A Canadian in Sweden
Joined
·
6,130 Posts
Great photos Ken. I have to admit that because I'm a dad of two kids myself, the photo of your daughter is definitely the best one :). She is a cutie. Glad to see you're enjoying the Canon. You did buy the Canon, right? Btw, chuckice and chuckuni seem to really know their stuff about photography, especially digital. Pick their brains; they're good people to have on RBR.
Cheers, Wayne
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
funknuggets said:
Looks like it is rusting away... Is that intended via paint/camoflauge scheme? It just looks kind of nasty seeing the other ones.

One more question, is that first one a Corsair?
I just toured the A&S museum last week. The story on the P-38 is that when it was being readied for display a pilot from the era visited and commented that the plane looked just as they did when he flew them in the Pacific. A museum curator decided that rather then over-restore the aircraft it should be left as it was when used in combat. Good call. Too many museum aircraft end up looking like hangar queens.
 

·
Palm trees & sunshine!
Joined
·
24,200 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Snowbird said:
I just toured the A&S museum last week. The story on the P-38 is that when it was being readied for display a pilot from the era visited and commented that the plane looked just as they did when he flew them in the Pacific. A museum curator decided that rather then over-restore the aircraft it should be left as it was when used in combat. Good call. Too many museum aircraft end up looking like hangar queens.
I agree. The P-38 is one of my favorite planes in the museum for that very reason. You can 'feel' the history. Pretty stark contrast between it and the P-47.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
How long has there been a space shuttle there?

It has been a few years since I've been there. Is it real or just a model. I was watching a special recently on space exploration. When they were building the shuttle, they had a full size wooden model. It was called "The Savior", because any time someone new saw it, they said, "Jesus Christ!"
 

·
Palm trees & sunshine!
Joined
·
24,200 Posts
Discussion Starter #14 (Edited)
Cartman said:
It has been a few years since I've been there. Is it real or just a model. I was watching a special recently on space exploration. When they were building the shuttle, they had a full size wooden model. It was called "The Savior", because any time someone new saw it, they said, "Jesus Christ!"
It's the USS Enterprise. It's real and it's been there since the opening. I think it's actually been in that hangar for years. The Enterprise never went into space and I don't think it has the actual engines in it but it's real enough.

EDIT: To clarify, the pictures were taken at the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center Dulles annex of the NASM, not the museum on the National Mall in DC.
 

·
Palm trees & sunshine!
Joined
·
24,200 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
wayneanneli said:
Great photos Ken. I have to admit that because I'm a dad of two kids myself, the photo of your daughter is definitely the best one :). She is a cutie. Glad to see you're enjoying the Canon. You did buy the Canon, right? Btw, chuckice and chuckuni seem to really know their stuff about photography, especially digital. Pick their brains; they're good people to have on RBR.
Cheers, Wayne
Thanks. She's the devil in disguise, though. See that look on her face? In about 5 more years, I'm doomed. Doomed!

I did get the Canon. I'm reading what both Chucks have to say -- I'm very grateful for their advice. Lots to learn.
 

·
Rollin' Stones
Joined
·
2,560 Posts
Sr-71

The Sr-71 leaks fuel even after it takes off. It has to refuel. Once it gets up to speed the seams seal due to the contraction of the material. That museum exhibit is an aviation buff's wet dream. If it had an F-14D, an A-10 Wartog, and and an F-4 Phantom II I'd visit in a heartbeat.
 

·
Cat 6
Joined
·
4,695 Posts
KenB said:
Thanks. She's the devil in disguise, though. See that look on her face? In about 5 more years, I'm doomed. Doomed!

I did get the Canon. I'm reading what both Chucks have to say -- I'm very grateful for their advice. Lots to learn.
Anytime...btw, I don't know what Canon has for RAW software but Nikon makes Nikon Capture which is very nice for post-processing Nikon RAW files. I'm sure Canon makes something similar. Some swear by Adobe CS2 along with about a half dozen other players. For simple work I think you'll be hard pressed to find anything easier and quicker than Paint Shop on jpg's. If/when you upgrade to RAW shooting then I'd recommend doing some homework. I generally use a combination of Nikon Capture, Adobe CS2 and Noise Ninja. Post-processing RAW's can be alot of work so if the Rebel has a "shoot both" mode, i.e. shoot both RAW & JPG at the same time I would start with that. That way you can have the jpg handy and do minimal post-processing and have the RAW if you need to do extensive work. The nice thing about RAW is most on-body settings only affect the jpg output not the RAW output so it's very easy to recover a great many shots that might have been lost/overprocessed in jpg. Of course the downside to RAW+JPG shooting is it takes your card space WAY down. I have a Wolverine MVP9100 for data offloading in the field since even with 4 4gb CF cards that's "only" about 1000 pix. Seems like alot but on a 3 week Tour de France trip 1000 can be gone during the first TT. Anyways, point being I really recommend playing with RAW+JPG when you know you have the card space to do so. Have fun and feel free to ask any q's. I think ChuckUni is a Canon shooter so he may be able to answer more Canon specific stuff.
 

·
Palm trees & sunshine!
Joined
·
24,200 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
chuckice said:
Anytime...btw, I don't know what Canon has for RAW software but Nikon makes Nikon Capture which is very nice for post-processing Nikon RAW files. I'm sure Canon makes something similar. Some swear by Adobe CS2 along with about a half dozen other players. For simple work I think you'll be hard pressed to find anything easier and quicker than Paint Shop on jpg's. If/when you upgrade to RAW shooting then I'd recommend doing some homework. I generally use a combination of Nikon Capture, Adobe CS2 and Noise Ninja. Post-processing RAW's can be alot of work so if the Rebel has a "shoot both" mode, i.e. shoot both RAW & JPG at the same time I would start with that. That way you can have the jpg handy and do minimal post-processing and have the RAW if you need to do extensive work. The nice thing about RAW is most on-body settings only affect the jpg output not the RAW output so it's very easy to recover a great many shots that might have been lost/overprocessed in jpg. Of course the downside to RAW+JPG shooting is it takes your card space WAY down. I have a Wolverine MVP9100 for data offloading in the field since even with 4 4gb CF cards that's "only" about 1000 pix. Seems like alot but on a 3 week Tour de France trip 1000 can be gone during the first TT. Anyways, point being I really recommend playing with RAW+JPG when you know you have the card space to do so. Have fun and feel free to ask any q's. I think ChuckUni is a Canon shooter so he may be able to answer more Canon specific stuff.
I'm bumming out that I have only Photoshop CS, not CS2. CS doesn't support the newer RAW format of the Rebel XT. :( Canon did, however, provide processing software that is adequate. I also have Photoshop Elements 3.0 and it supports the XT's RAW format. I've been playing around with it. The XT does do RAW+JPG. That cuts me down to about 200 shots so I'm definitely going to work on the processing -- I was just out for an hour with my kid and I took 180 shots of her playing in the snow. These things make it SOOO easy to take a lot of shots. The speed of the focus is blowing me away. The burst mode is really quick too.
 

·
Cat 6
Joined
·
4,695 Posts
KenB said:
I'm bumming out that I have only Photoshop CS, not CS2. CS doesn't support the newer RAW format of the Rebel XT. :( Canon did, however, provide processing software that is adequate. I also have Photoshop Elements 3.0 and it supports the XT's RAW format. I've been playing around with it. The XT does do RAW+JPG. That cuts me down to about 200 shots so I'm definitely going to work on the processing -- I was just out for an hour with my kid and I took 180 shots of her playing in the snow. These things make it SOOO easy to take a lot of shots. The speed of the focus is blowing me away. The burst mode is really quick too.
I don't know anything about Canon's software but maybe ChuckUni can chime in. I know that I swear by Nikon Capture and only use CS2 for a handful of things.

You gotta love the instant response and feedback of a digislr. It can't be beat.
 

·
Polka Power
Joined
·
1,346 Posts
chuckice said:
I don't know anything about Canon's software but maybe ChuckUni can chime in. I know that I swear by Nikon Capture and only use CS2 for a handful of things.

You gotta love the instant response and feedback of a digislr. It can't be beat.

I've never messed with the Canon software much...when I started using Canon digitals it was fairly primitive. I've heard it's better now and makes nice RAW conversions, but I've gone onto other things and haven't tried it again.

I use mostly CS and now CS2 for mostly everything as it's integrated well and for me makes the best looking conversions overall. I sometimes use a program called Bibble for large batches but since CS2 I haven't used it as much. There are a bunch of programs available. They all tend to make the pics look a bit different...it's kinda like chosing film in the "old" days.

I'm pretty sure the XT shoots CR2 files when in raw mode. It's possible you can upgrade your CS version to handle them. I had to upgrade my CS version when I bought my newer cameras.
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=39&platform=Windows
Try the camera raw update. Thats the windows version...if you need the mac version it should be on there. CS should get the job done just as well with a few less features. It also seems quite a bit faster than the newer CS2.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top