Some basic qustions

[AeroClassics]

I have some questions that I am trying to resolve (I am going crosseyed from reading web sites and articles).

1. Metering - my camera manual says most photographers use evaluative metering most of the time. I get supicious when I see "most" followed by "most". What do most photographers use? Evaluative, Spot or Center Weighted?
2. Histograms - I just read an article about histograms. The author suggested that the "rule" was to get the histogram as far to the right as possible without getting clipping. By clipping I assume he means the histogram "extends" beyond the right edge of the box. True, false or is that one of those things that starts with "It all depends..........."? He also warned that not all cameras treat histograms the same. All the way to the right might be completely blown out on one camera and only slightly on another (God I would hope not!) He also warned that when shooting raw that not all raw converter histograms are the same either? Huh? I would assume a histogram is a histogram is a histogram. Is it not a mathematical rendering and display of the gray scale from 0 to 255?
3. I have Elements 5. I will probably never have CS3 or the like (I would rather save my meager monies for better glass and new tools for the shop). As such, for those out there that are using Elements, do you use the Raw converter that is in Elements or do you use use a 3rd party product? For example my Rebel XT came with Canon's DPP and raw software.
4. Speaking of DPP does anyone out these actually use this program? I kind of like it for somethings as it is easier to use than Elements, I think, for batch processing etc. It does not have the fancy features of Elements, layers for example (which I do not know how to use anyway) but it seems either as a good first step in the digital processing workflow the moving to Elements. Comments?
5. Only having had my XT for about a month, is it OK to be confused as hell about what lenses I might consider saving for? I must have read thousands of lens reviews and I still have no clue what might be a good next choice! Seems no matter the lens the reviews run the full gamat from it is junk to it is the best lens ever! I have even tried to narrow down by trying to decide what I shoot most and then target lenses for that purpose. My problem is I shoot everything! I take people pictures, wildlife, flowers, airplanes (my real love) and just about any other animate or inanimate object that is on God's green earth! I am beginning to believe there is no "one lens fits all" for people like me. True?

Thank you in advance, the quality of the talent on this forum is spectatcular and I look fior to your comments!

Doug

[canoflan]

Answers:
1) Depends on what you want to expose for and the situation. If most of your frame is evenly lit, then evaluative works fine. If most of your subject is in the center of your frame, but you have some bright areas in the background, center weighted may work well. If you have a black tux on a groom, then spot metering the face to lock exposure will get you a decent exposure without having to fudge with exposure compensation.

I will let others answer the rest and not take all the fun away.
Pat

[barP]

since i only have a minute, i'll tackle the question about glass.

it's like airplanes, or in my case - motorcycles. there's one for every occaision.

having said that, we can't all have a different bike for each kind of riding we want to do.

i have a stable of lenses and i plan to get more, but that's me.

if i had to get rid of all but two of mine, i'd keep:

canon 24-105 f/4l is
canon 70-200 f/2.8l is

even so, that's $3000 worth of glass. if i had to spend less, i'd still say get those two focal lengths and just get the biggest aperture you can afford. sigma makes a very competent 24-80, and the canon 70-200 f/4 is universally applauded. that would cost half the two pieces i listed.

wp.

[brad]

I'll try to tackle "most" of these... hehehe

1. Metering - "Photographers" is a wide definition... I would think that "most" photographers use whatever mode is default on their cameras for the simple reason is they may not know how to change or why they would. That you are asking the question is an answer in and of itself... of the photographers that know what the different kinds of metering are and how to change it, they use whatever is appropriate for the subject. And that doesn't even begin to address the photographers who use hand held meters......
2. Histograms - If you read something that tried to tell you what a perfect histogram was, throw away what you read. There is no such thing as a perfect histogram for every situation. You have to learn what the histogram is telling you before you can say whether it is "right" for a given image. For instance: a histogram with the peaks pushed to the left may be exactly right for a scene that is mostly dark in tone... but one pushed to the right could be correct for a high key image.... and "in general" clipping is bad - that's when the histogram is clipped off the edges or off the top. That "generally" indicates an over exposure. (But, for example, if the goal was to blow out the background to completely white - that will show up as something clipped.)
3. DPP and Elements is just fine... I have been a working as a professional for many years and have yet to install Photoshop CSanything... I use a currently combination of DPP, Breeze Browser Pro, and Paint Shop Pro. Its not the tool, its what you do with it.
4. You are correct.. there is no "lens for all" .. there are lenses for various purposes, but to find something that covers all possibilities... if it were even to exist, would be prohibitively expensive. Your best bet is to find the best glass you can afford for whatever purpose... for example, I use primarily a 70-200 2.8L lens... but then, 90% of my work is headshots. I would not use that lens if I were trying to shoot mostly landscapes, or macro photography. I also have a 50mm 1.8 prime in my bag as well as an 85mm 1.8 prime... I use them for times when the 70-200 just isn't right. Eventually I will add a wide angle zoom (24-70 2.8L probably) .. and maybe a fast prime that is longer (I lust after the 400mm)... but only after I feel like I really need them for specific work I am doing.

Clear things up a little? You will get a lot of opinions for your questions... those are mine.

[JPalmer]

Brad basically answered everything pretty much how I was going to... but I'll add a few personal observations.

1. I've never liked the eval. metering for no other reason than my line of work doesn't offer many second chances to be right. Center weighted most of the time or spot because my subject in a journalism situation HAS to be right.
2. Brad is dead on right ...
3. I had elements 5 before getting CS3 and used the RAW convertor built in without any problems. That being said... I was probably (and still probably) not smart enough to really notice a difference in the conversions from one program to another. That being said, I do not typically need large studio quality prints where using RAW would really make a difference.
4. I think that you SHOULD know what type of lens you want next... only because you would want to purchase in priority order. You say you shoot planes a lot, what tool would be most helpful for that purpose. I would guess fast telephoto so you can shoot from distance or plane-to-plane. The point is to have a plan ... there aren't a whole ton of new types of lenses being introduced... they all pretty much fall in one of a few categories (super-tele, telephoto, mid-range, wide, super-wide). It's like flavors of ice cream.... how many different types of chocolate are there?

Good luck...

[AeroClassics]

Thanks Pat!
That answer makes more sense then just about anything else I have read.

Thanks, Will! That gives me some serious focal lengths to think about. As they both would seem to work for pretty much most of what I do. What are the chances of anything done in dim lighting (a kids orchestra or choir concert) with a 2.8? The F4 is more affordable or do I just forget anything dim light indoors until I can afford the expensive glass?

Brad! Thanks. A very honest answer to question 1. Not a lot of information on the how and why but it does tell me a lot about other photographers ;-) OK. I realize any discussion of Histograms has to be general in nature unless one is describing a particular camera in a particular situation. I was looking for some real world experience on what a Histogram might be trying to tell me and how I could learn to use that information to my advantage. Nothing fancy mind you (I realize that certain shots might look from a histogram viewpoint as being a problem when in fact that is the shot you are after). I am more interested in real world experience. The light meter, exposure meter, histogram and other items are just information providers or tools to help someone get a good shot. I am trying to concentrate on a "work flow" for lack of a better term. When I understand what the items do, what information they give or what effect they have on a photo then I can begin to use them in some kind of an order prior to pushing the shutter release. I am not sure I am making sense or not. Let me try it this way. Most accomplished photographers probably have a mental exercise or check list they go through prior to actually taking the picture. For example, based on what I have learned from you guys, it might be something like the subject should help me decide on the metering the histogram and light meter should tell me am I grossly over or under exposed. There is more I am sure as I am not quite sure where ISO, aperture or shutter speed fit in quite yet. My mind works best off of a check list and until setting up for a shot becomes virtually automatic it helps me to mentally run the check list. You guys are helping me build that check list! I also appreciate your comments about lenses. I was pretty sure there are no "perfect for every occasion" lenses. But as Will did, he told what he would keep if only allowed to keep two. Also thanks for letting me know others out there use something other than CS3! Seems like that is all I read about.

JPalmer, thanks. Your real world experience helps me a lot. I am not shooting journalism pictures but it does give me a pretty good idea why you meter the way you do. And it makes sense. I am not so much concerned about the quality of the RAW converter but more interested in what seems to work. Obviously, CS3 works since they sell tons of them and it seems all the "pros" use it. I am not a pro, never expect to be, just validating that I can set up a digital darkroom work flow with the tools at hand that will more than suffice for what I am needing. Oh, as for RAW, it appeals to me simply because it appears, based on my reading, that the image is as the sensor saw it. No post processing and conversion. So all the information is there. Thus it should be easier to correct some mistakes made by a novice. Or so it seems. Ideally, I think the goal is to be able to set up and capture an image that doesn't depend on post processing to make it acceptable. Your lens analogy is very helpful and provides food for thought. Since I must plan my purchases very carefully.

Thank you folks! I appreciate your comments. If anyone else wants to chime in. I am trying to be a sponge soaking up as much information as I can process!

Doug


Doug

[Dobick]

To answer your questions, I have to add the precursor that I am a bit wierd, and try to work things that make sense to me.
1: I use spot almost exclusively... I have a preshot ritual that I go through for almost all scenes which is to focus, expose, expose lock, confirm focus, shoot, then check to see if I got it close.
2: I hate histograms. I understand the blinking highlights on the back of an image much better than I understand a histogram, so I don't rely on it too often. I also magnify into the darker areas of a photo and try to discern if there is still some detail left if it is at all important to the context of the shot, but if it is real dark, then it probably wasn't too important to begin with.
3 and 4. When I first started I used a combination of EOS Viewer, to DPP, convert from raw to JPG then any final mods in elements 2. I tried elements 5 and didn't like it at all. I have CS2, and actually like bridge, which is what got me to consider Lightroom. Now 90% of everything I do to photos is done in lightroom.

5. I personally have two lenses that offer me a great range of focal length options, have a very nice build quality, and are optically better than my composition skills, which means that I have a long time before I will outgrow them, if ever. 24-70 f/2.8 and the 70-200 (non-IS) f/2.8. I also own a 50 f/1.4 that I am not all that crazy about.
What I think that I need to get on the next purchase would be the 16-35 f/2.8 and the 300 f/2.8. I borrow a 300 frequently for sports shooting, and would like to own it, and I find myself really needing wider a lot of the time, now that I am shooting house interiors more.

You will probably get a lot of advice about primes, and how they are optically better (and I would not disagree) but bang for buck, I like the versatility of a fixed aperture zoom lens for my shooting style.

Bottom line on all the advice that you receive, and reviews that you read -- if the tools that you choose don't fit the way that you approach photography, post-processing workflow, and the way that you want your images to come out, then they will not be worth a thing to you.

[AeroClassics]

Dobick,
Thanks. I like your ritual and that's what I am working towards. Something easy and repetitive so that I do not forget to do the little things.

The best I have heard so far is the software is not as important and learning to get the shot in the first place. Maybe to the glamor photogs it is. But I can see I have adequate software tools (especially since there is so much about them that I have to learn) that I am set for now at least. I would love to get a couple of fixed aperture lenses. But I am going have to my eyes open for something used as fixed aperture lenes are not cheap!

You last point is very well taken!

Thanks,
Doug

[toverman]

I don't have much time to answer either, so I'll take the last two.

I use DPP for RAW conversion, usually making a few light adjustments. Then, I use Photoshop or even Elements to take processing a step further. I like DPP for its ease of use and (so far) reliability. But there are some things it won't do.

If you care about quality, there is not one lens that will fit anyone's needs. My mom (who shoots Pentax) has an 18-300. Sure, the focal length is tempting ... why would anyone need anything else. But even she has a 50 f/1.4, a 100 mm macro, a 125 mm lens, etc. etc. etc. Every lens is a compromise of some kind. For quality, a pro-level zoom or fast prime can't be beat. For convenience, something either light or with a wide focal length will be the "best." It's OK to be confused. I've been shooting for years and still have to do a lot of research before I buy something.

[AeroClassics]

Toverman,
Thanks for adding your thoughts to the conversation! I appreciate them. It has given me a chance to see how other photographers go about shooting pictures. Everyone I know with a camera is pretty much stll trying to figure out what they are doing.......much like me. So I don't really have someone to tag along with and learn from.
Doug

[barP]

aero, with regard to your question about the concert....your camera body will be a much more limiting factor than your glass, assuming you can open up to f/2.8.

regardless of the photographic medium, exposure is made up of 3 elements:

iso
shutter speed
aperture

as your max iso is only 1600, you will - even at f/2.8 - likely be forced to use such a slow shutter speed that it will be very difficult to get a sharp image, especially with a chunk of glass like that hanging off the front of your xt.

a good guideline (and only that) is to never allow your shutter speed to drop below the reciprocal of your focal length. ie, with a 70-200 cranked all the way out, you would try not to go below 1/200. image stabilization helps with that, but only 2-3 stops. i know a guy who can shoot handheld, totally crisp, with that lens at 1/25 in certain situations, but he's been doing it 30 years!

hope all this helps!

wp.