cameras and shooting your own content

[basschick]

lately i've been seeing a lot of dark pics, blurry pics, yellow pics and other problem pics in various sites, and i can tell thanks to the exif info that a lot of these pics are shot with pretty good - or even really good - cameras. the thing is, most people don't know what all the features on dslr's are, and auto on the better cameras is actually inferior to some of the better digicams.

i was actually discussing this with arie when i recently wrote a blog using content from bentley race. funny thing there - the pics were sharp, well focused and looked good. and they weren't shot with a canon 1D or a nikon D200 or even a digital rebel - they were shot with a canon s3-is.

and here's the funniest thing. a lot of the people i talk to who shoot their own content would scorn shooting content with the s3-is, but in reality, it has what they need - a really great auto (yeah, as long as you use the tungsten setting indoors), long zoom, the ability to get really close, image stabilization. actually it also has better looking video than a lot of camcorders, but that's an other story.

sure, it has its drawbacks - you'd be wise to only use it at ISO 80 or 100. but the reason most people wouldn't use something like this is prestige. they feel their models won't respect them (yes, i've been told this one more than once) or that other photographers or webmasters won't respect them.

for what it's worth, the people who really count respect people who use the right tool for the job. if you don't have the time or interest to learn to use a dslr, your pic quality will suffer and you may make less money and have few pics well-lit and sharp enough to use for design.

and speaking as someone who has to choose blog pics from over 50 different programs - and also as a consultant whose clients sometimes have no sharp, clear pics to use for banners or design - i know that your members, your designer and your affiliates will all be much more impressed with good pics than on whether you're using a pro camera with a $1200 lens.

[chubbs]

Well I just noticed you have 7000+ posts so I am guessing you know your stuff. (j/k I know you take pride in your work)

Seriously though, I agree with what you said about the right tool for the right job. Why spend more $ than you have to? As long as the final product looks great. Hell I'd use a polaroid if I could.

--Chubbs

[krunnch]

People ask me all the time what camera I use. I tell them it doesn't matter - it's all about light. The bad pictures I've taken have nothing to do with the number of megapixels blah blah blah. It's because I forgot a reflector or I was too lazy to measure the light or... whatever.

just FYI I use the lowest end Canon DSLR I can find, which at the time was a Rebel XT. I did pop for a good L glass lense, though. That makes much more of a difference than the body.

[basschick]

i like the rebel xt more than the rebel xti. it is a little more comfortable to hold and the pics show a little less noise. but i'm a firm believer that for internet use or prints up to 8x10, even the canon kit lens does a fine job and looks great. L glass is great for large prints, magazine covers, etc, but like i said - the exif info at bentley race showed they used an S3 and the pics looked better than 80% of what i see.

did you find the rebel was unbalanced when you first put an L lens on the front of it?

People ask me all the time what camera I use. I tell them it doesn't matter - it's all about light. The bad pictures I've taken have nothing to do with the number of megapixels blah blah blah. It's because I forgot a reflector or I was too lazy to measure the light or... whatever.

just FYI I use the lowest end Canon DSLR I can find, which at the time was a Rebel XT. I did pop for a good L glass lense, though. That makes much more of a difference than the body.

hey, after i read exif into on every adult site who leaves it in, and i began to realize that ALL the worst looking or not great pics came from dslr's, sometimes better than mine. funny thing is that in a good kit, my camera was going for over $1200 and the s5 can be had for $350.

Well I just noticed you have 7000+ posts so I am guessing you know your stuff. (j/k I know you take pride in your work)

Seriously though, I agree with what you said about the right tool for the right job. Why spend more $ than you have to? As long as the final product looks great. Hell I'd use a polaroid if I could.

--Chubbs

[attis]

When I started with digi SLRs I had to learn pretty quickly to forget all about that auto stuff and to go back to the basics of photography. The auto thing works pretty much okay with cheaper digi models, but with SLRs the results are next to terrible. And guess what, this is exactly what every serious photo guide about digital photography tells you.

I think the biggest problem is that with DSLRs marketed as 'easy to use' killer machines with +10k pixels, everyone and his brother thinks they just can buy one of those neat thingys and become a photographer without having a real clue about lighting and stuff and also without bothering to read at least the manual, not to speak of taking a photo course.

In times before the digi age only the most professional, ambitious or adventurous photographers would go and buy a SLR. And at least most of the latter would quickly discover their limits and return to their roots where they've been happy before, and continue with taking pictures at their sisters birthday party.

I hope the days when customers accepted any poor quality picture as long as there was a dick or butt in it, will be finally over and they will only pay for quality material.

[krunnch]

Yes, you quickly learn that it's all about lighting, which means you need to know what an f stop is :-)

Basschick, I didn't find my 24-80mm lense cumbersome at all or unbalanced. I tend to hold the lense now more, but that doesn't bother me.

I talked to a lot of wedding photographers. Although I don't do that work, what I do is similar. Indoors, outdoors, focusing on people... If a wedding photog has a canon, most likely [sh]e has this 24-80 L glass.

The real advantage of that lense is that it's faster than the stock lense. You probably get an extra two f stops of range. This makes a great deal of difference to me. I can get much clearer shots.

You might be able to get decent pics with a point and shoot but IMHO you'll never get great pics, precisely because of what attis says. Outdoors you might be ok, but I don't see how you could do a proper studio shoot at all.

For one thing, point-and-shoots can't use strobe lighting because they can't go manual, among other things. And for me strobes produce the most dramatic, clear shots.

I'm not sure auto mode on SLRs is a bad thing. It lets you ease into learning the camera, which can take time. At least with the Canon, if the lighting situation isn't too demanding, auto modes can take really good pictures.

But as you say, very soon you will find that you want more variety, more drama, whatever. And for that you must go back to basics, for sure.

[basschick]

auto mode would let you ease into shooting maybe - but the auto model on the 20D is dismal and on the 30D isn't much better, at least for indoor shooting.

keep in mind that this thread was about shooting web content, not other photography. i see a LOT of sites where after a year or two, the pics are still blurry, dark and/or yellow. these webmasters haven't even discovered the tungsten white balance setting in a year or two. they haven't changed settings or used lighting enough to make the pics look even decent. they haven't learned to either speed up the shutter speed enough after learning the lighting and settings or learned to hold the camera steady, nor have they opted for a tripod. they're pics aren't "comsumer" quality - they're still beginner quality.

so in this case, auto on a dslr is hurting their sites. that was my point. i saw far superior pics inside bentley race - who used an s3 is - then inside more than half the the sites i review.

btw, many point and shoots have full manual these days, among them the s3 and s5 is and the fujifilm S9100 and F6000. they can all use a strobe and the S9100 and S5 actially have hot shoes.

[krunnch]

>>keep in mind that this thread was about shooting web content, not other photography.

Yeah, that is what I was talking about. But it doesn't make a difference to me. I wouldn't settle for lesser quality based on the destination of the content.

As for quality, well a bad photographer is a bad photographer, no matter what they use. A good photographer will take better pics with a DSLR than with a point and shoot because there's more control.

[basschick]

oh, i very much agree - i leave my 30D on manual at all times.

but out of the last 20 sites i reviewed, only 4 didn't have pictures that made me cringe to look at, so i'm going out on a limb here and say that most site owners' and their photographers aren't photographers, and aren't really interested in learning to use their cameras.

this thread was about and for those people. i don't wanna look at blurry or dark pics or pics with a strong red or yellow caste, and i'm sure their members feel the same. pics like that don't enhance a site. amateur is one thing, but what i'm talking about goes beyond amateur. for that matter, i don't want to look at pics where the focus is on the desk or the painting on the wall and the guys are out of focus - a $300 p& s with face detection would be a plus in those cases.

what i'm trying to say to those webmasters who don't really have the time to learn photography is to please consider the right tool instead of the most expensive or prestigeous. your members and your wallet - and us site reviewers - will thank you

[krunnch]

Sure, I get that. I just think that no technology is gonna help those people. The best tool for them is career counseling :-)

[basschick]

*LOLOLOLOL*

Sure, I get that. I just think that no technology is gonna help those people. The best tool for them is career counseling :-)

[gaybucks_chip]

It's a bitch learning to be a photographer if you're not one to begin with.

A couple times I've spent an hour or more over IM or phone helping a couple of different people who were convinced "their camera was broken" when the issue was they didn't have the slightest idea how to use any of the settings or even what they meant.

Personally, I'm old school... I used a Nikon FTN (film) for years back in the early 70s when I was in junior high, developed my own film and printed my own prints (some color, but mostly b&w) At the time, I knew the differences between different film and paper manufacturers and all sorts of subtleties which I've long since forgotten... but I also did everything manually because there was no automation on the FTN at that point. I can do OK on a digital camera because I do understand manual shooting, but it's still a different world than the mostly B&W stuff I shot years ago in more controlled settings.

I agree that camera automation is the bane of quality photographs, though I also am amazed that the Canon Rebel XT can actually do pretty well on automation... in some cases.

It really isn't all that complicated to shoot manually once you understand the basic concepts of ISO, white balance, shutter speed, aperture, and depth of field. It just takes a little practice, but once you figure out what's going on, I find it pretty intuitive. Perhaps one of us who knows enough about that should do a short tutorial.

The other thing is... to be fair, a lot of webmasters have been learning as they go. We are starting to work on boyfunk 4.0 and we will have a lot of photos to go through, because in a lot of our older shoots the camera work left a lot to be desired. We've gotten better, but we still have a ways to go before we really get it consistently where we want it, and I suspect that most other site owner/producers are in the same position, unless they started as photographers first, site owners second.

But I do agree that even the worst photog should be able to self-censor his work and post only the better stuff.

[krunnch]

"It's a bitch learning to be a photographer if you're not one to begin with."

LOL, ain't it the truth :-)

What helped me learn is the partial automatic modes on the Canon. They have presets for common conditions like portraiture, sun, low light (I think).

Often I would put the camera on fully automatic and just saw what the camera picked for exposure, etc. Then I'd play with the settings on manual to see if I could do better.

And gawd I hope my pics got better after I started. Once I got enough content I ditched the worst of it.

Now I'm going through the same thing with video, which I find much harder ....

[SPACE GLIDER]

i'm going out on a limb here and say that most site owners' and their photographers aren't photographers, and aren't really interested in learning to use their cameras.

Okay, I can mention a shoot I was on. It wasn't about porn, but the "photographer" had to take pictures of the indie that was being filmed ... I suppose they were going to be posted on a site advertising the film. You'd THINK he'd care about the quality of the pictures he was taking but he was just phoning it in ... yes, even while being physically present on the set.

[Lee]

A couple times I've spent an hour or more over IM or phone helping a couple of different people who were convinced "their camera was broken" when the issue was they didn't have the slightest idea how to use any of the settings or even what they meant.

{cough} LOL

Regards,

Lee