DoTheMath: Thanks a lot for your help, unfortunately price is my #1 concern so I think i will be going with the older 10-20, i'm going to sell my 18-55 kit lens, my 50mm prime, and add the 10-20 and a 35mm prime to the 55-200 piece of blah that i own. I'll be in Patagonia in two months so hopefully i can give a little back to the thread with pictures.

I love this thread, EDF is like a different world inside of 2p2; thanks guys for all of your help!

Also, Mike thanks for your help, i've enjoyed creeping this thread for your photos

I own a Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 which I'm very happy with. Would recommend Sigma, but as always look up reviews online for your particular lens.

I just bought the sigma 10-20mm. I was looking at buying some filters for it and a friend mentioned that a lot of the stuff i use filters for (graduated ND for patches of over-exposure) can be fixed with a little photoshop magic. I'm a pretty staunch opponent of HDR and overly post-processing so i still haven't even downloaded photoshop, i use a free program called scarab darkroom to convert from .raw and fix some minor overall image properties.

Before i outfit myself with a few filters I was wondering what you guys thought about the matter, should i get a copy of photoshop and start learning to be able to fix some of these problems, will photoshop solve these problems as well, after the fact, as I could prevent them during the shoot with some filters? I'm not opposed to photoshop at all but I don't really like glossing up images too much, i don't mind if it's not photoshop, freeware is my friend and if i'm only going to be doing some minor changes will photoshop be too much for my needs?

Ligthroom will get you a very nice catalog feature with keywords etc and adjustments/editing fetures. Plugins for uploading to flickr, picasa and more. I only use Photoshop if I need to mess with layers and more andvanced stuff. And PS Elements will probably be sufficient.

Gimp is a freeware alternative to Photoshop. Tried it a few times, but I always think it's to hard to understand how it works so I always end up in PS.

Bluemarine is a free Ligthroom alternative, needs some work though, and has no editing features. Not sure if it's still developed any more.

ND filters are pretty expensive if you use the good ones that will not reduce the image quality.

Lastly, HDR is pretty cool, try it sometime

post processing can't fix highlights....

Split-ND filter still makes sense for landscapes, etc

Yeah that's true.

Or use HDR or Photoshop to combine multiple images.

ND filters are also still super useful for long exposures in daylight - that stuff can't be done in post either.

In that case, any recommendations for a 77mm Graduated neutral density, also for a 77mm Polarizer?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-exu...el_video_title

Here's a video I put together detailing everything that goes into two of my shoots - from setup and the job on set, to post processing. Enjoy! The production quality on this is much much better than the last one. View full screen to get some nice detail.

Afraid I can't help there, as I haven't gotten around to getting a set myself yet. One thing about polarizing filters on superwides though - be careful how you use them! I've heard numerous reports that due to the nature of how they work, skies will get darker from one side to the other. Polarizer might not be a great choice for a superwide if you plan on doing a ton of landsacpe stuff with it.

Really cool video mike.

So do you basically just use layer masks to only show whatever you happened to use the strobe for during that shot?

I think I am going to try this at the theatre I work at since its so hard to shoot the inside of since its such a dark space.

Brilliant work, Mike. Love seeing your process! Thanks for posting.

If you're even in Seattle area for a shoot hit me up. I'd love to buy you a beer and watch you work.

So you're firing off frames with a remote shutter and flash is firing iwth pocket wizard or similar? Are you mainly lighting darker shadowed areas or just lighting almost everything? Do you have a gel or diffuser on teh flash or is it bare?

I notice you are lighting the plants and shrubs from behind. Any reason for that?

I'm selling my house in the spring, possibly without the help of a realtor so I'm gonna be experimenting over the next few months to see if I can get a decent exterior shot.

How many shoots do you do a week? How long before sunset do you a) set up b) start shooting?

Thanks YP. That's pretty much the technique in a nutshell

Thanks! I'll definitely let you know if I ever head up to Seattle. Love it up there.

Yep, this is all done with Pocketwizards. I usually light shadow areas and areas where there is already light, but it's too faint for the camera to pick up. I also light areas of interest, e.g. stonework etc etc. Just more or less massaging the light that is already there into being more intense and dramatic. I also try to bring out some of the lines in the architecture by the use of light.

The reason I light the plants from behind is because I'm really just turning up the volume of the light that would spill out of the windows. By controlling the direction of the light on the trees/shrubs it's more realistic. The light has to come from somewhere - in this case, the interior lights are spilling outside and I'm just amplifying that effect with a flash.

When I lived up in Northern CA I did a couple shoots a week. I just relocated and I've got one shoot booked so far haha. It's going to take awhile to get re-established but I'm confident that this was the right move for my business. Much more opportunity for growth here.

I usually start getting setup about 90 mins before sunset. Setup consists of laptop, multiple cameras, pocketwizards, USB cables, getting all the lights turned on, both inside and outside, and managing rental equipment if needed. From there I'll shoot until it's pitch black out and the only remaining light is coming from the house. Usually a solid 90 minutes of shooting, but 2-2.5 hours if we include setup and tear down.

That was a really cool video Mike. How much time do you spend in PS after a shoot like that?

Any advice for someone shooting video with a Nikon D90? I barely understand the mechanics of the video capture, so anything would be helpful. The link is a video i shot while on the way of a friend climbing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI-49-WmgBc

I used my 35mm prime lens only because it's (until the 10-20 comes) the best lens i have to use. I am not sure how to autofocus during the video (possible?) so i messed up focus a lot and i'll have to figure out a way to keep myself a little more stable.

(for anyone interested i was on a top rope using a gri-gri (self-locking auto belay device) to lower myself down from the top, raising myself back up is kind of exhausting with it so i tried climbing at one point (2 minutes?) and forgot to take in slack so when i let go i dropped about 6 feet, will have to work on this)

Considering having someone top belay me next time and they will pull in slack as the climber climbs so that i can be on the ground when he starts and follow him up the whole way.

What difference does the aperture/shutter i have my camera set to before i press the film button matter? I don't want my DOF to be that drastic next time (or if i do i need to get better at keeping focus on the object) but i wasn't sure how that would affect how much light would be captured (total noob at recording).

I figure i'll learn a little in the way of editing as well, for this one it was pretty much just have a friend with imovie compress and upload it (he put some music in the background because the original audio was tortured by a passing motorboat).

Thanks pele. Usually anywhere from an hour to three hours. The first shot in the video, probably an hour, and the second one, probably 2.5 or so.

With all those layers I would have guessed more, but I suppose you get faster over time when you learn what and how to edit certain things.

Doing a photo trip this weekend if the weather is OK, will post some pics next week.

your aperture will effect the depth as you would expect, the shutter when filming a movie will effect the frame rate, you want something low, between 1/30 and 1/60 to give you a smooth looking video, use ISO to adjust exposure

a more detailed explanation is here: http://blog.tylerginter.com/?p=385

fantastic link, just what i was looking for, much obliged sir!

came across this climbing video today, some inspiration for you with stills/video

inspiring, indeed...makes me want to leave my job today and get on the road. I'm excited to get to a watchable level of content. Climbing is so beautiful to me, i love when someone captures the emotions of it on video

Been shooting these w/ a nifty fifty on a 60d. But It is very hard for me to focus properly, so the bright stars come out a bit messed up, and then I **** it up even more when I edit and try to bring some color out. Who knows, maybe I need a better lens for such precision, idk.



M31, aka Andromeda galaxy.

Hi guys,

I've been looking at a Canon EOS 600D - Can anyone recommend this or would you choose a different brand/model in the same pricerange?

My cousin wants to get her first 'real' camera and she wants to get this Sony NEX 3. Its like $450 and marketed as being the same as DSLR but half the size. Anyone have any experience with these things? I've never been a fan, but I don't really have any real basis for that opinion besides the fact they seem like wannabe DSLRs. I was just going to tell her to pick up a used rebel Xsi + kit lens and battery card for $350 off CL instead. thoughts?

What does you cousin mean by a 'real' camera? What is important to her? What is it about her preferences that leads you to suggest a used Canon over a used Nikon? (There are advantages to either brand).

The alleged marketing is misleading. In terms of capabilities, the Sony Alpha NEX-5 is more an advanced point-and-shoot with a bigger sensor and a couple of interchangeable lenses than it is a DSLR without a mirror and pentaprism. Some of the advantages of the larger sensor size are negated by the way it handles ISO. It will not produce the range of images nor offer as much creative control as any DSLR. It has very few available lenses (3?) and has a new proprietary lens mount. Compared to a DSLR, its available lenses can't go as wide or long as a DSLR, nor shoot as fast. It has worse metering and autofocus, has poor ISO control, lousy battery life, and not very many controls. I think you can get better compact or 4/3 cameras for about the same price.

It, and its co-released sibling, the NEX-3, are the first APS-C sized compact, interchangelable-lens cameras. They may be the beginning of a very important new line of products. But for me, it looks like the edge is more bleeding than leading.