Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

EOS 35D Setting help?
#1

Hi people, i know, typical forum rules are to search before you post, but my time is limited as i'm in a net cafe at the moment and my money is running out.

I bought an EOS 350D without any real knowledge of photography. I figured, since it's something i want to do, i may as well start with top quality equipment instead of from the bottom and get frustrated.

The problem i have, is i cant figure out how to get the quality of images i've seen around and on the DVD that came with it.

I saw some pictures on a website, and the girl said she used a cybershot camera, with a remote and no additional lighting (i cant find the pictures), but they looked dream liked and professional.

I made a soft box out of some tissue paper, a card board box and stuffed it with a 500k halogen workman's light. It softens the light, but not the subject.

[Image: softbox.jpg]

I find that, although my subject isnt real, the overall image comes out too harsh, or not soft enough.
I'm getting to grips with the settings, but not fully understanding them

[Image: face.jpg]

[Image: settings.gif]

I'm pretty much looking for suggestions or links to other topics similar to this with answers pleaseeeeeeeeeee.

I'm a web/graphic designer and bought the camera to try expand my business, however if i cant pull off 1/2 decent professional pictures without the aid of photoshop, it'll either be a waste of money, or people's time.

Thanks
Reply
#2

Don't fret my Friend. You chose a good camera and I'm sure you'll get the hang of it. One thing to look at is the cameras white balance settings. I prefer to keep mine on Auto. That would be a good place to start for you too until you get the hang of the rest of the settings. From the first shot you show it seems fine. The 2nd shot suggest that it is a tad bit under exposed. As you said, the softbox softens the light and not the subject. That is what it is supposed to do. Softening the subject is not a light issue if you are indeed talking about a "soft focus". Then you do in fact have to edit in photoshop unless you want to use filters on your lens for the effect. I can assure you that any images you have seen on the CD you mention have had a certain amount of post processing.

Btw, welcome to Shuttertalk. We're the friendliest bunch on the web. Smile

Sit, stay, ok, hold it! Awww, no drooling! :O
My flickr images
Reply
#3

Drunkentre Wrote:I made a soft box out of some tissue paper, a card board box and stuffed it with a 500k halogen workman's light. It softens the light, but not the subject.

I'll think some more about your camera issue, but let me first warn you that you are going to burn down your house using tissue paper and a 500k halogen lamp!!! Those lights get HOT HOT HOT!!! Be careful! And don't use that light around pets or children!!!

:o :o :o

_______________________________________
Everybody got to elevate from the norm!
Reply
#4

Petographer

Thanks for the welcome, although i'm not sure i liked being called an introvert, at least on the net anyway, but a truth is a truth no matter where it's been spoken.

I'm the type of person who doesn't like to read. I just do and do untill i get something that looks nice or works, but i do need to maybe take a few classes or find some good tutorials on soft focus and filter using.

I've only had my sexy baby for a little over a week, and only got my memory card a few days ago, so there's still a lot of room for play time.
I'm looking at some Cokin filters which i hope will do the job, at least for the amout they're charging they better.
I dont really want to spend too much time in photoshop as some of the people i have work lined up for want to see somewhat instant results, but if it's a must, then it's a must.

slejhamer,
Dont worry, i use these lights for filming. They get quite hot very fast, so all safety methods are praticed & such, although burning my house down may create a good picture.

Thanks for the help and advice.
I know at some point in the future, i'll be giving help and advice to newbies myself!
Reply
#5

Okay, I think the problem isn't your exposure, it's your white balance. The "harshness" you describe is clipping of the color channels.

Here's an example. The lighting in this gameroom was was tungsten, but I had the camera set to "daylight" by mistake. Take a look at the histogram: the blue channel is clipped (resulting in too much yellow) and the red channel is also spikey.

[Image: daylight.jpg]

And here's proof of how shooting RAW can salvage an image: I simply changed the white balance to "tungsten" and neutralized the light - and the histogram no longer shows clipping. The obvious banding on her arm is gone.

[Image: tungsten.jpg]

I think if you play with your white balance settings you'll get more favorable results. Best bet if you shoot JPEG is to set a custom white balance with a high-quality gray card beforehand.

_______________________________________
Everybody got to elevate from the norm!
Reply
#6

I see what you're saying.
I've found shooting with the built in filters, i get a more softer image, but i'll play around with white balance settings and see what i can turn out.

Here's someone elses picture that i liked, i've asked her how she got the results she did, and i'm awaiting an answer, she said she didnt use photoshop, but i'm not sure. I've seen people who've gone to professional shoots and had similar pictures taken with no photoshopping done.

[Image: p1113983419.jpg]

But i'm not sure if that's down to actual filters for the camera. I've seen a set, but i think they're more for landscape shots.

I got to play around with the camera this weekend though, took some okish looking pictures, also set off a few car alarms with it too - that still puzzles me!
Reply
#7

My mistake, the picture above was photoshopped, it was someone else who said they didnt - all good looking girls look alike to me :| - well that solves that mystery, i guess i should just take raw pictures and shop them till i get what i want.

SO MUCH WORK!
Reply
#8

Yes, something like that can be done without Photoshop, perhaps with a diffusion filter (this looks reminiscent of a Softar, I think) and studio lighting.

But I don't believe that she didn't use some software-based post-processing, even if it wasn't PS. She was careless in some areas.

Also, she took the high-key too far - the highlights on the face are paper white. There should be some detail, even in high key lighting. Wink Paul's recently posted high-key photo of his son is a great example of doing it right.

Your camera sets off alarms??? :o

_______________________________________
Everybody got to elevate from the norm!
Reply
#9

I'll have to look for a Softar, although in all the camera shops in my area, no one seems to want to help me, it's like they dont like business, or maybe the fact that SLR's are going digital? Who knows.

I'll also have to read up on the high-key post, infact i need to read up on a lot of posts on the forum, my net should be up on friday, so as of then, i'll be tuned in daily and will possibly post my progress.

I have no idea how my camera set off the alarm, but it did, at least 6 times before i moved and it stopped.
If only it would clean my room!
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread / Author Replies Views Last Post

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)