What's your technique when out with your DSLR camera? (1 Viewer)

[senatore]

Right you are out walking in your local park and the weather is cloudy but quite bright.Your DSLR camera with a telephoto lens attached is on your shoulder and you see a Whinchat sitting on a fence about 12 metres away.What do you do from now on in order to get a good shot?

Do you set the ISO first or the shutter speed or the aperture.Do you set the camera to tv/ae/av modes or something else?You can tell these questions come from a complete novice with DSLR cameras but it would be very helpful if you more experienced photographers would let us know what you do to get a decent shot.

Max.

 

[Adey Baker]

You will already have set your camera to a suitable ISO setting for the prevailing conditions. Ditto for the AV (my prefered choice) or whatever you prefer metering setting together with the apropriate aperture to give you a fast enough shutter speed.

If the light levels change (ie the sun comes out - or more likely, goes in!) you'll change the settings before you get to a possible subject.

This is the key to getting an off-the-cuff shot - if you only have five seconds before it flies, you don't want to waste four and three-quarter seconds fiddling around with settings.

Oh, and have the camera up to your face ready as soon as you start to approach the bird - don't get up to it and then start moving your arms around otherwise you won't even have that five seconds to play with!

 

[pete schofield]

Pretty much as above but also I usually rattle of a couple of shots on something/habitat and check the Histogram.

Also this is where shooting in RAW becomes an advantage, in that whatever you get wrong you have a chance of sorting in software.

Good luck

Pete

 

[christineredgate]

Keep the ISO on 200,point and shoot as soon as you see the bird,it may fly off and you may not get another chance.If it seems as though it is going to stay,then check your cam settings.

 

[SMC2002]

I agree with Adey's advice. You should already be close in terms of settings, before walking around. Your ISO should be set as low as practical for conditions and the speeds you think you will need. AF focus should also have been set. AI Servo for motion/in flight shots and One touch for sitting/perched targets. If you will be switching between air and ground shots you may have to change AF modes.

I will usually even dial in my EV Comp, if required, if I know whether I will be shooting against the sky or the ground. EV Comp is easily adjustable without removing your eye from the VF. Since I shoot most birds in flight, my camera is set up with this in mind. That way I can easily shoot my quarry and change settings on the fly, if necessary, for other targets of interest.

The more you shoot, the more these sorts of things will become habit or second nature.

Steve

 

[Chris Oates]

I set ISO according to light conditions and use 'P' mode (programmed exposure) - I use a Nikon D70 so the rear command dial scrolls through available F stop/shutter combinations - the camera evaluation is usualy close as it knows about long lens & shake etc.
Photography is all about exposing a sensor - there are many trick dials that control how you do it - choose the one that gets you the best result with the minimum of thought.

 

[Keith Reeder]

Yep, you should have set ISO, aperture and EV "thereabouts" before you even point the camera at a bird.

As an aside: like Chris I expect, I have no idea what "tv/ae/av modes" are - these being Canon descriptions.

I wonder if there's a way to come up with generic descriptions of these functions (there are presumably nikon equivalents), so that Nikon and Canon users can discuss things on equal terms?

 

[Adey Baker]

As an aside: like Chris I expect, I have no idea what "tv/ae/av modes" are - these being Canon descriptions.

Yes, Canon do have their own way of stating things - but basically 'T' stands for 'Time' and 'V' for 'Value' thus av is aperture value - same as aperture priority and tv is the same as shutter priority

 

[senatore]

Thanks everyone for the advice and allthough I have been "playing " with my 350D and 170-500 lens only for a few days I really do admire you people who get these sharp detailed pics of birds.I think they are a long way off for me.

Can I ask another question please.What does taking pics in "RAW" actually mean.Does it result in you being able to amend your pics more easily with your photo editing software?

Max.

 

[Keith Reeder]

Gotcha, Adey - a common terminology will let everybody play!



Max, think of "RAW" as a digital negative.

I wouldn't say it's easier to post process RAW images, but - IMHO - it's by far the most flexible format, and you can do much more with images in RAW.

Basically, JPEG is a "lossy" format - every time you make a change to a JPEG and save it, you lose some of the information in the image: that's OK if the image is "thereabouts" when it comes off the camera, but for most of us, life ain't like that.

With RAW, details like white balance, exposure value and whatnot are stored speperately from the picture as metadata - numerical values - so you can muck about with them to your heart's content without the image being degraded.

I use NEF (Nikon's RAW) format, and I will never, ever, ever go back to shooting JPEGs.

Not ever.

Nope.

I won't.

Don't even ask.

 

[SMC2002]

Max,
I am with Keith. Once you start using RAW, it's hard to go back to shooting just jpgs. RAW gives you so much more post processing latitude. It doesn't come without a cost though. When compared to jpgs, RAW files are huge. So in-camera digestion time increases (a max burst of 23 jpgs is reduced to 6 RAWs). While RAW files allow you to more easily tweak white balance and adjust exposure values, the workflow takes more time than a jpg workflow. First you have to do your adjustments on the RAW file, then you convert it to jpg/TIF and continue with part or all of your normal jpg workflow (cropping, color, shadow/highlights, sizing, sharpening, etc....).

Once you get a decent conversion program (like Adobe Camera RAW, which comes with CS or CS2) and get comfortable using it, it will only take you a minute or two of additional post processing time. And as Keith writes, once you go RAW, there's no return


Steve

 

[SueO]

Gotcha, Adey - a common terminology will let everybody play!



Max, think of "RAW" as a digital negative.

I wouldn't say it's easier to post process RAW images, but - IMHO - it's by far the most flexible format, and you can do much more with images in RAW.

Basically, JPEG is a "lossy" format - every time you make a change to a JPEG and save it, you lose some of the information in the image: that's OK if the image is "thereabouts" when it comes off the camera, but for most of us, life ain't like that.

With RAW, details like white balance, exposure value and whatnot are stored speperately from the picture as metadata - numerical values - so you can muck about with them to your heart's content without the image being degraded.

I use NEF (Nikon's RAW) format, and I will never, ever, ever go back to shooting JPEGs.

Not ever.

Nope.

I won't.

Don't even ask.

Aw, come on, tell us how you really feel about shooting in jpeg.

 

[senatore]

Thanks all for an explanation of RAW.I think I will have to get some decent photo editing software.I will not need anything too advanced as it may be wasted on me.I currently use Microsoft Picture it 7 which I think may be ancient.Any thoughts anyone?

Max.

 

[Jeremy]

I use Picture Window Pro for editing photos. A great programme, which should be much better known. Much better than PS Elements (which I also have), but about the same price; much cheaper than PS CS2. Allows all adjustments to be made in 16-bit for maximum quality. Available for download at the Digital Light and Color website at: http://www.dl-c.com/Temp/

 

[mjmw]

Thanks all for an explanation of RAW.I think I will have to get some decent photo editing software.I will not need anything too advanced as it may be wasted on me.I currently use Microsoft Picture it 7 which I think may be ancient.Any thoughts anyone?

Max.

Hi Max, I use Paint Shop Pro X (PSP) for final finishing (for web or print), having worked mainly in Canon's software for RAW. PSP is comparable priced to PS Elements, with more features.
However, if you are not familiar with 'digital darkroom' techniques, it may be better to start with PS Elements because there are more tutorials available and more people will be able to guide you through 'click by click' here on the forum.

Cheers Mark.

 

[hollis_f]

Thanks all for an explanation of RAW.I think I will have to get some decent photo editing software.I will not need anything too advanced as it may be wasted on me.I currently use Microsoft Picture it 7 which I think may be ancient.Any thoughts anyone?

Max.

For RAW processing I'd recommend you download Raw Shooter Essentials. This is a pretty good package and has the distinct advantage of being free. It will allow you to make most of the adjustments you'll want to make to your images. Once you've done that you can save a copy of the image as a jpeg and do further editing.

For editing the jepgs I reckon there are two packages to consider - PhotoShop Elements 4 and PaintShop Pro X. You can download trial versions of each via the links I've included.

 

[paul goode]

Thanks all for an explanation of RAW.I think I will have to get some decent photo editing software.I will not need anything too advanced as it may be wasted on me.I currently use Microsoft Picture it 7 which I think may be ancient.Any thoughts anyone?

Max.

Hi Max

Have you checked what software came with the camera. Both my 300 & 20 came with elements or elements 2 in the box.

With regard to RAW, I wouldn't bother for a good while. JPEG large will give you perfectly good results and keep your post processing to a minimum. (Checkout Steve Youngs published shots in Outdoor Photography.)
Another downside of RAW is that the buffer will be much smaller and you could easily miss shots waiting for the buffer to clear.

Regards

Paul

 

[Tannin]

Don't worry too much about the raw-format snobs, Senatore. (Yike! Did I just say that? Couldn't have. Not the sort of thing I'd ever say. At least not out loud. Well, probably not if I was sober. Not very often, anyway.) Yes, people (not the nice people here, I hasten to add, but people you meet in general) can get rather snobbish about shooting in raw. They remind me, in fact, of the way people used to get about using film, back before digital was the way it is today. Or of the way that classical listeners get about rock and roll.

Half the trouble with raw is that you are practically made to feel guilty if you don't use it. Hey, you can't be a proper photographer if you're not shooting raw.

Don't believe a word of it. Raw does not provide higher resolution, not does it provide a better quality picture than a good jpg. Note what I said there: a good jpg. Not a random jpg, or a jpg with the white balance out, a jpg where you got it right the first time. With raw, you have the ability to get your white balance (and several other things) right after you take the shot. This can be a huge advantage. But in and of itself, it offers nothing extra.

Raw comes at a cost. Other posters have mentioned this already: huge file sizes, cumbersome viewing and editing, slower camera response. What you have to decide is: is that cost worth it for you?

My own answer is "no, usually not" - but there are exceptions. Let's work an example:

Harry and Julie have a special bird in frame. The lighting is difficult, they don't expect to be able to get too many other shots of this bird (it's a rare one). The way it's sitting, most of the time the eye is in shadow, but it's turning its head now and again and although the lighting is difficult, for a fraction of a second at a time, the light is catching in its eye - which, of course, makes the shot come alive.

Harry is shooting jpg. In the 5 seconds he gets before the bird takes flight, he ripples off 25 shots, and hopes like hell that he has nailed the exposure and the white balance - because if he gets either of those more than a fraction wrong, he's got 25 throw-away pictures.

Julie is shooting raw. She ripples off a eight shots, secure in the knowledge that she can adjust the WB and the exposure later on.

So who gets the prize-winning picture?

Harry has 25 chances of getting the bird's eye with the light catching it. Julie has 8 chances. Advantage Harry.

Julie has a 100% chance of getting the exposure right in post-processing, Harry has to hope he nailed it the first time. Advantage Julie.

Of course, you could sell your grandmother and use the money to make a down-payment on a 1Ds Mark II - hey, a camera that can shoot raw frames the way a 20D shoots jpgs is "only" AU$14,000. But if you are using anything less than a D200 or a ID, raw imposes a serious shots-per-second handicap. And offers serious advantages too. There is, in short, no easy answer. With the example I gave above, I'd rather be Harry: he has the best chance of a ripper shot. But you could just as easily find a reverse example. In the end, it's what works for you - and if that happens to be 100% raw or 100% jpg or 60-40 or 90-10, then good luck to you.

One last point. You will often hear people say downright silly stuff like "jpg is a lossy format, every action you take while editing a jpg degrades the quality even further". Well, duh ... If you edit in a lossy format of course you will wind up with fuzzy images. But why on earth would you save your intermediate steps in jpg format? When you edit a jpg, you save it to a non-lossy format first (TIFF or BMP or whatever you like, just so long as it's a lossless format) and edit the copy, saving as you go. After you have finished editing, you can transform it back to jpg format having lost, in the meantime, nothing.

 

[mcapper]

Nice one Tannin - a clear considered view.

I've just begun playing with RAW. I like the results but not sure I want to invest the time.

Have a play with both methods and find the one that suits. However, there seem to be a number of photographers who shoot in jpeg day to day but switch to RAW if they know the shot is going to need some rescue work - very dull conditions etc.

This 'middle way' sounds like a reasonable way forward to me.

Matthew

 

[compa]

Well said Tannin!

The first thing I do with any JPEG, that I need to edit to any extent, is convert it to TIFF. That way I have lossless editing over multiple sessions just like you would with RAW - but without the overhead on every photo.

JPEG compression artifacts are simply not an issue with the highest quality JPEG from a Canon 20D.

Without question, RAW can save a photo now and then that would be useless with JPEG. But I simply never take such poor shots. 3