OK so I just got my XTi+Lens,etc. It's been good times so far, very excited to have a SLR:




I like the shots I'm getting. I have a lot to learn though lol.



anyway, I was shooting with it last night and noticed a lot of lens flares. When lights were on and facing the car that's somewhat understandable.. but then I noticed lens flares when I was behind my car, from the LED lights.. casting what looks like a big blur. Any thoughts on this? I have a UV haze filter mounted on my lens (17-55mm f2.8 is) Could that be the problem?

 

(wait for it to load!!!)

...just two variations that's possible with Photoshop. If it were full sized images then resized, the results would have been better. In this situation, you will find a photographers constant dilemma. Do you meter the sky and expose for that, or to you meter the subject and expose for that? When you exposed for the car, you blew out the highlights of the sky. Photoshop is a godsend.

As for the flare, please post a pic so we can see what you are writing about.

The second pic is nice. Keep taking pics!

 

His second pic does show the flare. Look at around 10:00 above the left taillight.

Try a couple of shots without the filter and hopefully it will eliminate it.

Let us know how it works out.

 

i really wish i could get DLSR camera...........

g/l and have fun

 

The 17-55 is actually pretty prone to flare. A lens hood would help. And shooting it wide open at f/2.8 can cause alot of flare. I do love the IS on that lens though. Keep an eye on dust inside your lens. It gets bad pretty quick.

 

niceee good shots~!

 

a cheap filter will cause the excessive glare.

 

congrats on the cam and lens, i bought the same exact lens this past weekend. it will be replacing my canon 50mm 1.4 and tamron 17-35mm wide angle.

i also bought the lens hood which was NOT included for $50. canon needs to start include lens hoods like the 3rd party manufacturers do.

 

Replace the 50mm f/1.4? That's my fav lens in my collection right now.

 

wow ctwentytwo i didnt think that those details were even retained. i have photoshop but hadnt gotten into it yet. i figured photoshop could only do very minor stuff. interesting.

i feel like im very far down the curve on learning the camera because im coming from an elph which of course has no real Tv/Av/M mode -so i had to manipulate it to get what i wanted. very happy to have control now.

today i did some shooting to practice with Av and i think i did ok. got pretty good depth of field at higher focal lengths and wide f-stops. i understand my lens is sharper at smaller f-stops. but at these f-stops you get less light in and less depth of field. do you guys have any general suggestions on how i could go about picking a f-stop? im thinking that if there's adequate light (pending on what resulting Tvs are) i'd just lean towards f/8-10 unless i want tighter depth of field, in which case i'll go lower. how does that sound? any suggestions on particular things i could practice doing/shooting?

i also tried manual focusing but with mixed results. sometimes i hit it perfectly and other times i was off a little. i guess ill just have to practice taking general shots for that one.

im hoping to become proficient at these basics over the next couple months so i can get good pics at the tokyo motor show...so any other advice on things i could do in the mean time would be much appreciated

 

I dont like using any filters if I dont have to especially in low light situations. Some people double filters up (UV + polar) and it totally messes up the film. You can try to use a polar filter only, it helps when I get lense flare

 

yeah i was sad to part with it, but it just wasnt giving the range i needed. for sure i'll be buying it again once im able to aford a full size sensor. but in the meantime i'll have to stick with EF-S lens

 

there's no set guidelines we give since there are so many variables depending on the lighting, your position from the focal point, your distance from the background, your framing, etc.

If you're shooting a car, it will depending on what angle you're shooting from. For sample, if you're shooting a straight on front shot, you can shoot close to wide open, f2.8-3.5. If you're shooting a side shot, same settings are fine. If shooting a front quarter or rear quarter shot, you'll want to stop it down to about f4.0-4.5 so that the rear portion remains in focus. Of course this will change as you go with different focal lengths. If you shoot towards the wider focal lengths, say 17mm, and move closer to the car, you can shoot closer to wide open since the distance between you and the focal point has decreased and more will remain in focus.

Just keep practicing and eventually you'll get the hang of the settings.

 

cool.

i did some shots tonight. different conditions but it looked like things were better without the canon haze filter. but, even without the filter there was glare (or whatever it is). here are some shots, all handheld:



Av 1/60sec f/2.8 ISO100 F=35mm


Av 0.4sec f/2.8 ISO800 F=21mm *handheld


Av 0.4sec f/2.8 ISO800 F=24mm *handheld


Av 1/6sec f/2.8 ISO800 F=21mm *handheld


M 1.6sec f/2.8 ISO800 F=42mm *handheld while sitting

 

You will get flare (stars from light sources) if the light source is bright enough.

Do not handhold your shots in low light. Even though you was shooting with the 17-55mm IS with Image Stabilization on at 1/4 shutter speed at f2.8 and at 28mm (roughly 43mm), you will get superior results when:

1) you use a tripod which will ensure you have a sharp shot at night
2) which lets you use smaller apertures
3) which gives you bigger DOF and allows you to use a lower ISO (ie ISO 10)
4) which yields way lower noise levels and ensures you have a cleaner looking pic.

Of course, the smaller aperture and lower ISO means a hit to your shutter speed... hence the tripod. The shots should have been 2-8 second shutter shots to yield the best results.

You can throw $ if it is short on a cheap tripod from Comp USA / Best Buy because the XTi is light. Get a better tripod if $ allows. A tripod is pretty much a necessity doing night shots. I'm surprised you got it that sharp handheld looking at the shots.

That orange cast from the lighting is from tungsten bulbs (regular bulbs). If you want a cooler pic, you can shoot in RAW, and change the White Balance in a RAW converter... Confused?

Read here:
https://my350z.com/forum/photography/294490-raw-processing-w-canon-s-digital-photo-professional-maximize-your-canon-dslr-pics.html

Keep going, you're on the right path.

Here's one on shot on Av with an aperture of f10, and the camera chose 10 second shutter speed. Of course, shot on a tripod. I shot this in RAW, and processed using the OEM Canon software DPP. If I used Photoshop back then, the darks would have come out better... that's the beauty of shooting in RAW, you can go back and reprocess non-destructively.

 

what's the difference between a $10 tripod and a $100 tripod?

i need to buy one, too

 

Stability. The better ones can support 10+ pounds. Also weight. The more expensive ones are carbon fiber (legs). Others come with the heads already on... but they are the cheaper ones. The better ones you have to buy legs and head separately, but cost $100+ for legs, and $50+ for heads, depending on what kind of head you want.

Search "Manfrotto" as they are recommended by the pros and make sure you check out the weight they can hold.

I bought a manfrotto with head already on, and cost only $80, but it had a 3 way head. A ball head will let you get crazy angles faster (less clamps to turn).

 

thanks for the info

 

sturdier legs and tripod head can hold more weight without sagging

 

Check out Benbo Trekker or Gitzo Explorer also, as it can be manipulated for low angle, low level shots.

One more thing... the more weight a tripod can carry, the heavier it is. Consider it's weight if you plan on lugging it around during shoots.