I have to admit, I did have to do a little cloning to remove a blurry image of a girl climbing the waterfall. You can probably see where if you look closely. So it kinda feels like I cheated. But besides that there was very little post involved, just bumping the contrast and clarity to around 50 in ACR and adding a little saturation. Image quality from the Canon 17-40L is fantastic!

There is no cheating any more. Only your sense of reality and how much of it you want to convey. The amazing thing about that pic to me is the way the light plays in the trees on the far side of the waterfall - adding depth and an enchanted feeling. Capturing that w/o much post-processing magic is a real feat imo.

Actually maybe this pic resonates with me so much because it reminds me of Selleck-Waterfall-Sandwich:

I think there was a movie about that.

How did the session go?

I wish I had seen your post before the event. Thinking about new shooting situations is a good learning exercise. Even though it is now too late to help you, I'm going to post my own thoughts. Perhaps you can compare them to you actual experience. Maybe other people, more skilled than me, can comment as well. If I'm wrong on any of this, I want to know.

So essentially, you are going to be taking portrait photos of a horse. I have never done that. The closest I have come is a couple of sessions of photographing bull moose in the wild. An appointment to photograph a horse gives one a lot more time to plan than an impromptu encounter with wildliife.

My first thought is that I'd rather have a longer lens. A 17-40 mm lens on a 7d body gives a max EFL of only 64 mm. This translates to a shooting distance of about 18-20 feet, which might be a bit too close to get good perspective for a side-on shot. and is almost certainly too short for a head-on picture of a horse. If I could, I'd probably choose something in the 50 mm to 85 mm range, assuming my choice of shooting position is not going to be too constrained.


The next thing to wonder about is if your lens is fast enough for the task. A portrait photograph usually has the subject (or some part of it) in focus, with the background out of focus. We'll assume that for a photograph intended to sell a horse, you want the whole horse in focus. Since we are trying to sell the horse, but not the stable, we don't want more than the horse in focus. I think this means a depth of field of about 4 feet for shots from the side. If we also assume the sharpness sweet spot on your lens is two stops below its widest aperture of f/4, we find that, at a shooting distance of 18 feet, at f/8 you will have a depth of field of about 25 feet, with about 3/4 of that behind the horse - exactly where you don't want objects to be in focus. If you use this lens, while shooting from the side of the horse you will probably want to consider three things to mitigate the effect of too much depth of field:

• shoot wide open (even at f/4, DOF will be about 10 ft.),
• focus about 3 feet in front of the horse,
• position the horse so there is a large gap between it and any objects beyond it.

Horses move. You will probably want a reasonably fast shutter speed to deal with that. I would guess 1/500 or faster. Does this give you enough exposure? At f/4 and ISO 100, that gives an EV of 13, which is just enough for cloudy (not heavily overcast) outdoor light. At f/4.8 or f/5.6, you are going to want to increase your ISO to 200, unless you are getting direct sun.

Speaking about sun, what sort of light do you want? You have a 9:00AM appointment. By the time the horse is ready and you have set up your shooting location, it is only going to be a couple of hours before high noon. If it is a clear day, you have going to have some pretty sharp shadows and bright light from above. Side lighting may be more flattering of the horse's muscles. Have the horse's body pointed almost towards the rising or setting sun. Assuming one hour of set up and practice shots and 30 minutes shooting time, can you reschedule to dawn or 2.5 hours before sundown? This will give you 30 minutes of the golden light that is 60-90 minutes from sunrise or sunset.

You may think an hour is too much time to allocate to set-up. I think you should spend some time getting to know the horse and letting the horse get used to you and your equipment. Turn off the beep.

Poor backgrounds can spoil a portrait. You don't want distinct objects growing out of the horse's head, back, or tail. Ideally you want background objects that provide a consistent, defocussed colour field behind the horse. That means no horizontal or vertical buiding elements (roof lines, end of walls, contrasting windows or doors) interesecting with the horse's body or head. The colour of the background should provide good contrast with the horse. A chestnut or strawberry roan against a red barn, a black horse against a dark building or a white horse against a white building are not good ideas. Blue sky makes a good backdrop, but if it is cloudy, you might want to find a hedge, or stand of trees. The farther the horse is from the background elements, the more out of focus the background will be.

If your choice of shooting locations is constrained and you will be unable to avoid partially-in-focus background elements, then you will need to compose for the background. In this case, consider using more DOF.

How is the horse going to be kept in a pose? Is the owner going to be holding the bridle or reins? If so, it will probably be unavoidable to have the owner in the frame. If that is the case, you are going to have to focus on her, and let DOF cover the horse. Using reins to tie the horse to a post may not result in a good composition. Ideally, you want a horse which will stand still on its own.

Shoot from a number of angles: from head-on to 90 degree or more off. Shoot from a variety of heights from waist height to 8 feet or more. Get some closeups (frontal, 3/4 and profile), at a longer focal length. A horse has a long head. A straight-on shot with a small focal length will exaggerate this in an unflattering way.

If I was taking this assignment, I would want to meet the owner and horse on location well in advance. I'd talk about the types of pictures the owner wanted. I'd assess the temperment of the horse. I'd scout shooting locations and check lighting at the proposed time of day for the shoot. I'd also check the weather forecast and have a rain day if one might be needed. I'd probably want to shoot 60-90 minutes from sunrise or sunset if it was going to be sunny, and look for an open sky background. On a cloudy day, I'd shoot closer to midday and look for a solid backdrop. When considering backgrounds I would keep in mind the direction of any direct sunlight (open sky looking direrctly into the sun is no help). I'd want a lens, or lenses that covered 50 mm to 85 mm or more (longer on a full-frame) at f/2.8 or faster. I'd probably shoot at f/3.3 or wider from the side of the horse and f/4.8 from in front, unless I couldn't isolate the horse from the background.

Wish I'd had my tripod because many of the old obligatory fireworks shots would have turned out better but anyway here are two of my better ones

Obligatory Independence day photos. We spent the afternoon/evening with a friend out in the country where he had a big cookout, shooting clays, typical yard games, and later a private fireworks show.

The fireworks exposures turned out pretty decent with my Gorillapod and D5000, although I would have preferred to shoot something wider than the 35 f/1.8 lens I have since a lot of the shots were cutoff because the lens wasn't wide enough.


Sunset reflections by IABoomerFlickr, on Flickr


Shooting Clays (2 of 4) by IABoomerFlickr, on Flickr


Shooting Clays (3 of 4) by IABoomerFlickr, on Flickr


Fireworks (1 of 2) by IABoomerFlickr, on Flickr


Fireworks (2 of 2) by IABoomerFlickr, on Flickr

Nice fireworks guys!

I would prefer shooting with something not as wide so that it fills the whole frame like Bostaevski's pics. To much dead black space otherwise.

Just my $0.02.

On fireworks:
I started out intending to make just a quick comment, but this got much longer than I originally planned.

I certainly don't claim to be an expert at taking firework pictures. This is just a snapshot of where I am after trying a few times which were each a year apart. Hopefully it helps people avoid some of the less desirable shots. Having it written down will probably make it easier for me to refer back to it next year.

General advice applicable to almost anything:
If you are wanting to do an event where quality is important to you, try to get some practice at something similar prior to the event.

General: If in doubt, take a shot. With digital, I have never regretted taking an extra picture. There have been many shots I have regretted not taking.

I would definitely prefer to error on the side of taking the pictures with a lens that is sure to get the entire firework and a moderate to significant amount of black space. You can always crop it down in post so that it fills the full image. You can never get back the parts of the image that were not recorded. Most of us have, at least, 8-20+ megapixel count cameras. Sometimes the best use of a significant portion of those pixels is to just toss them out. At times, you should plan for it. Sure, if you are taking a picture of something that is static, take the time to frame the shot well. With a non-static subject, often you should plan to just take the shot and frame it in post. Each firework is unique. You will not be able to go back and get that shot again. With fireworks, by the time you know exactly what you are attempting to frame, it is way to late to take the shot. Thus, I would rather frame the shot, as taken, with a significant portion of the image to be unused black than only get 1/2 of the firework in the shot because I was trying to perfectly frame where I mistakenly thought this firework was going to explode.

Fireworks are a difficult subject to frame well, as shot. The diameter of each firework within the display varies dramatically. In addition, the height at which they explode can vary from 1/2 to 2 times the nominal height. This means that if you are taking the picture from below the firework display the individual fireworks can be between 1/4 and 2.5 times, or more, a nominal angle of view. If you are taking the pictures from the side, then the height at which the firework explodes also affects where the firework will be centered, potentially in addition to the angle of view needed. By the time you know where any particular firework will be centered, or how large it will be, it is way too late to take the shot. This means that you must guess prior to the firework exploding where the explosion will take place and how large a field of view you will need for this particular firework. Firework displays tend to run in sequences, so it is possible to adjust to better frame a sequence. I miss some fireworks while adjusting. In addition, when I tighten up the framing for a sequence which has a smaller angle of view, I know I will miss some fireworks when the sequence changes to ones covering a larger, or just different, area.

A firework is also something that happens over a significant period of time. From the point that the firework explodes to the point that you want to end the shot can be a few to several seconds. This makes taking pictures of fireworks extremely difficult without a tripod. Best is to have the tripod on a sturdy base, a remote trigger, and use mirror lockup. For instance, I had to move to a secondary location this year because the cement pad on which I had placed my tripod was insufficiently stable. I was able to feel the tripod moving to the beat of the music which was played prior to the show. Being on a nearby, larger concrete pad was sufficient to prevent that. Had I not moved, it is likely that the sound of the firework explosions would have jiggled the camera, ruining many shots. The need to have the camera remain steady is an additional reason that you don't want to be adjusting the framing for every shot.

Something that can be very helpful in a circumstance like this is to have more than one camera set up with the area you expect the fireworks to be in framed differently with each camera. Trying to pay attention to two cameras will split your mental focus. Practice is, of course, a good idea. Having the same, or at least very similar, camera bodies, so the controls are similar, helps.

Side note: All mounts (camera + tripod + head + etc.) take some amount of time to settle after the camera has been moved to a new position, or even just touched. You can get setups which are sufficient such that the time needed is not human perceptible, but to do so you commonly have significantly higher cost and/or bulk. Hanging something with moderate weight below the center of the tripod can help. There is often a hook on the tripod available for this purpose. I would suggest taking some time to get familiar with how long of a pause you need on the rig you are using between moving the camera and taking a shot. This is something that is most noticeable when you are taking a shot with an extended exposure time immediately after moving the camera with image stabilization turned off. You may need to do your testing in an environment which allows you to use a longer exposure time (indoors/night/ND filter/etc.). You will probably want to try this both with and without image stabilization. Doing so should help you get an idea how the IS on your camera/lens treats such directed movement. Some IS implementations, particularly if set to be on all the time, not just for the shot, can end up hurting rather than helping in this situation. The need to know how much delay is required from movement to shooting is something that is also quite applicable to shooting panoramas, particularly HDR ones. If you can, do this testing in environments both with and without high intensity point light sources. It seams to make a difference to some IS implementations.


Some basics of what I use:
Mode: Manual. The subject won't exist when you begin the picture. Thus, it is effectively impossible for the camera to do any metering to make selections for you. Some camera's have a special firework mode. I haven't tried such a mode, so don't know how effective they might be.

Flash: Off, of course, unless you want to also illuminate a foreground subject with the firework in the background.

Focus: Manual, obviously. I pick a static focus distance prior to the show beginning. For me this has been at, or slightly beyond, the hyperfocal distance, or at infinity.

ISO: As always, lower is better. I have been using ISO80. Basically, I use ISO80 for everything, unless there is a exposure reason to use shutter speed/aperture combination(s) which I can't reach without a higher ISO setting.

F-stop: Start with the sweet spot for your lens, the fireworks are, probably, going to be positioned such that focus is at infinity, or use the hyperfocal distance, or a bit past it. Assuming that focus is at infinity, DOF is probably not a consideration; but, might be an issue depending on your situation. Aperture will probably be the primary method of adjusting exposure, particularly if you do not have any ND filters.

Exposure time: I'm still playing with it. Depending on the actual fireworks, and how accurately the exposure is triggered, 3 to 6 seconds has been good. I've used longer exposures to result in multiple fireworks exposed in the same frame, often a nice effect. However, stacking pictures in post would probably be a better way to achieve a similar effect. Bulb mode is good too. With decent reaction times bulb allows starting and stopping the exposure just before and immediately after the actual firework, rather than just starting before and hoping the exposure time selected happens to close the shutter after the current firework and not halfway through it, or halfway into the next one.

Triggering the exposure: Bulb is going to be useful only if you have a remote of some sort so that you are not touching the camera. Without a remote, you are not going to be able to use bulb. If you have to touch the camera to take each shot (i.e. no remote), you are going to need to set the camera to delay starting the exposure past the settling time for your rig (which you hopefully experimented to find). If using a delay, a longer exposure time is probably better to make it more likely that the camera is actually taking the picture while the firework is visible. Having the exposure include a period of time during which there is no firework visible is not much of a problem against a very dark background, which will usually be the case (i.e. you can start the exposure early and/or end it late). If using a Canon P&S camera, CHDK has motion sensing capability which can be used to automatically trigger the exposure.

White Balance: So far, I have used "daylight". I shot in raw each time I have taken firework pictures with the intent to go back and figure out what I really want the white balance to be in-camera. I have only played with the raw files a bit. White balances in the daylight ballpark appear to work, but I would want to play with it quite a bit more prior to settling on something. It would probably be a good idea to make a note of any picture which had portions which were perceived as distinctly pure white in combination with other colors. This would allow easier use of the eyedropper tool to set an appropriate white balance when processing the raw pictures. White balance tends to be about artistic choice, making an image look good/real, and/or matching actual human perceived experience. Without a specific artistic choice, or a need to make the picture have a particular look, I tend to default to trying to make it match my perceived experience of the actual subject under those conditions. Without the ability to check against the actual subject it tends to be more about making the image look good, at least for me.

Image stabilization: Personally, I would shoot fireworks with IS off, if not hand held. While there are a few different ways to do image stabilization, I have seen some varieties get confused when there are high intensity lights moving in the subject area. The fact that the lights have both uniform (wind), and unique (explosion, propulsion) motion components could result in the IS doing interesting things. Frankly, I haven't tried shooting fireworks with IS on. It has always been a thought process of "Hmmm... that could be bad, leave it off just in case." If taking pictures of fireworks was more than just a rare occurrence for me, I would experiment more.

Overall exposure: Under-exposure should be reasonably obvious. For over-exposure check for the firework trails being too white, or white in the center of a trail that has a colored glow around the trail. I would use a ND filter/aperture/ISO to adjust. It should be clear that changing the shutter speed will not help with exposure level. Even if over-exposed a bit the shot will probably still look good. For some shots, over-exposure is almost unavoidable due to the high dynamic range of the firework display. Based on looking at my pictures from this year, I will probably try using a moderate ND filter if I am shooting from the same place next year. Having a ND filter at least available is probably a good idea, generally, for fireworks. It will allow using a larger aperture than would otherwise be possible.

grunching: looking for advice on purchasing my first DSLR. In college I used all 35mm and I am looking to get back into photography and the DSLR seems like the obvious choice. I have my choices narrowed down to either a Nikon d90, d5100, or Canon Rebel EOS t3i. I have read that the d90 is more of a classic photographer's camera with more manual options, but less video capabilities, while the d5001 and t3i are more multimedia tools with top quality video and more MP's.

my main uses for a camera is as a hobby and also semi-proffessionally, as I am a graphic designer. I would use the camera for such things as product shoots or photographing pieces in my portfolio. I am sure taht all of these camera's could accomplish these needs with ease.

also, my budget is around $800, which will buy both the d5100 and t3i, and only the body of the d90. buying a lens as well would bring the cost to about $1000, which I am not sure I want to spend.

is there a really good reason to get the d90 or should I just get either the d5100 or the t3i?

Thanks in advance.

If you see yourself shooting with off-camera flash later, or want to use less-expensive but still optically good quality older Nikon lenses, then get the D90. The built-in focus motor will allow you to use far more lenses and have them focus than the D5100, and the flash control system is far better on the D90.

If this is going to be more of a casual, something better than a P&S camera purchase, then shelling out the extra money for a D90 might not make sense and you can decide based on features/feel between the D5100 and T3i.

Also, don't get caught up in the megapixel issues. More pixels on the same size sensor means smaller pixels and more potential interference/noise between pixels. I've got a D5000 (the discontinued step down from the D90) and have made a 20x30 print from the 12 megapixel image and it's fantastic. Unless you're making ginormous prints, I can't see where you'd need an incredible number of pixels.

thanks. I think I am leaning more towards the d5100. Its cheaper and this is my first DSLR and I will mostly be using it as an amateur/hobbyist. If I really get into it I could see myself selling this one and upgrading to the d90 (or the newer version thats out at the time).

Also, yea I realize that about the megapixels. That is one reason I wanted the d5100 instead of the t3i, b/c they the same sensor but the t3i has more MP's, thus creating more noise. Also, I was reading reviews all day long and it seems the d5100 outpaced the t3i in almost every facet of the product.

I bought a Canon S95 last week and have already taken it out more times than my D90 that I bought it in February.

lol just got mine and used it quite a bit in hawaii over the last week on vacation. Great little camera. Underwater case is only ~$175

re: fireworks

I think bulb mode is actually better than manual. Allows you to have much more precise control over what you are capturing. To many bursts on the same frame will spoil the image and make it look too cluttered. Get a cable release and click as soon as mortars fire into the air, hold it open until the bursts you were watching are gone and next round is getting fired up. Adjust aperture to properly expose scene.

There is actually a decent fireworks show at the hotel we were staying at and our room had a great view from the balcony. Will post some when i'm finished with them.

Also captured a full on double rainbow all across the sky. What does it mean?

Yeah bulb mode ftw when shooting fireworks.

And I think you need go and buy a powerball lottery ticket ASAP

Bulb mode as a way to control the shutter is not exclusive of manual mode. One is how to control the shutter, the other is if you, or the camera, has control of some, or all, of the camera settings which affect the exposure. Actually, the use of a mode other than manual with bulb does not really make that much sense.

Hmmm... Perhaps you meant to say: bulb mode and manual?
I guess another possibility is that your camera has a specific bulb mode which is separate from manual (not the way that I would expect it to be implemented). This is ideal. It assumes, at least: bulb mode is available, there is a remote/cable release available, and the person operating the camera has decent reaction times (doesn't have to be great, just OK). My comments as to options other than bulb were intended for cases where at least one of those assumptions is not accurate. The comments were framed the way they were because the first time I was attempting to do this I managed to not have my cable release when the time came to actually take the pictures. I had planned to have it with me, but it was not there. Thus, I had to explore other options. I, of course, made sure I had it for subsequent attempts.

Sorry I guess I should have said bulb mode instead of set exposure times, since the proper timing of capturing each burst is so dynamic. Manual mode + bulb for sure. If you don't have a cable release then play around with shutter times and use a 2 second timer instead so you minimize camera shake.

mirror lockup is also a good idea

Generic cable releases are like $10-15. No excuse to buy a tripod and not just order a cable release off ebay/amazon the same day. Pretty sure you could even make one for <$5 from ebay/radioshack parts

We appear to be in agreement.
I agree, if you are going to have a tripod you should also get/make a cable release/remote, when one is possible. Unfortunately, that will not be possible for most point & shoot cameras. With a DSLR it is also possible to forget or loose the cable release/remote [been there, done both, at least once ]. Yes, for many cameras one can be made one for < $5. However, you will probably want to spring for $7-$10+, as that might make it a bit easier to use.

While a DSLR is significantly preferred, I find that with just a little bit of knowledge/advice people taking pictures with a P&S can go from getting bad/unusable pictures in a particular situation to at least usable, if not good, pictures. I try not to limit what I say to assuming that the person is going to be using a DSLR with all the associated equipment at all times. In general, I assume that the more sophisticated readers have the ability to edit out (i.e. ignore) the portions which do not apply to them, or their situation.

I also have a strong tendency to run-on a bit with explanations. This is particularly true without the feedback of seeing the person to whom I am talking. Sorry if my doing so is contributing to our miscommunication.

Love the fountain. What was shutter speed?

Unsure about shoes. What is slivery white spot? I really don't feel drawn in or anchored to the pic. I like the colors and composition tho

Bought this guy at my local camera store: http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-10-24mm...pr_product_top



My first wide angle lens. I was thinking about the Nikon 14-24 for when I upgrade to full frame. But on my D-80 (APS sensor), it's really not that wide. And this was $500 as opposed to $2k. I'll just sell it when I upgrade, which might be a while since I plan on running my D-80 until it dies.

I'm going on another photography trip to Oregon Cascades and Crater Lake (and Mt. Rainer, N. Cascades NP, and maybe Lassen NP on my own) in a month. Hopefully I'll get some cool shots with this. I'm considering also getting a 100-300mm or something in that range. Any recommendations? I have an 18-155mm now.

I took 700 pics while on vacation. I managed to get it down to ten. I'll only share a few, since they pale in comparison to what else has been posted.





Are any of these remotely good? I don't understand how people get those ridiculously explosive colors in some of those shots. Maybe I should shoot more in 'vivid?'


I used a D5000 with the standard 18-55 lens. Not going to spend more money until I can use what I have to its full potential.

Suzzer, let me know how that lens works out for you. I ended up getting the Tokina 11-16 myself, but the Tamron was on my list along with the Sigma 10-20. I've found you def have to rethink how you compose shots with these superwides. Having something of foreground interest is an absolute must, otherwise you just end up with a photo where everything in the scene is tiny. Also, just angling the view up or down slightly will have a fairly dramatic impact on the "feel" of the photo.

I'd be interested in seeing some shots when you finally get around to shooting with it.

Regarding longer lenses, have you taken a look at what's available in the 70-200 range?

Well I have up to 18-135mm now. I'd like to be able to be able to cover from there to 300mm if it's possible in a reasonable lens. I don't want to have to carry tons of lenses around, but I would like something semi-reasonable for wildlife.

I used one of the Nikon wide angle lenses when I was on the photo tour in Hawaii - borrowed it from the guide. I'm not sure though if it was the 12-22 or the 14-24. I liked it a lot though.

This picture might be the best one I got with it.



Not the classic landscape pic but I like it. The problem with the landscapes was it was the middle of the day and he would just drive us to one lookout point off the road after another. Nothing really super inspiring. I got some cool shots when we went to the last beach and under a canopy on the way:

Have you taken a look at the Tamron 18-270 for a general walkaround lens? It won't be the greatest in terms of optical quality, but it certainly won't be bad, and the range for a single lens is pretty ridiculous. I've been really tempted by it myself a few times recently but just haven't pulled the trigger.

For wildlife, your other option is probably higher end glass with a fixed aperture throughout - there's the Sigma 120-300/f2.8, but it's not cheap.

Nikon do a 28-300 f3.5-5.6, but I have no idea what it's like.

This is an example of a pic I wasn't able to get on the Glacier trip because I just didn't have a wide enough lens to pull in the rocks and sky. (Again, not my pic - want to stress that.)

wow nice work on that pic, Suzzer! Love the rocks and sky!