Soon to be new photographer! Have a couple questions.

A

Azazel90x

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Messages
2,807
So today, i ordered a new camera, i ordered the Canon G10, and after looking at tons of reviews, i think i made a great decision. The reason i picked the G10 over a dedicated DSLR, is mainly portability.

I do have a couple questions tho, after looking at all the pics in the Pics i took 2009 thead, im currently reading DSLR & Photography for dummies (bought for $1 at Circuit City a few weeks ago) I still dont get a few things.

What exactly is ISO? The g10 comes with a dedicated iso knob from 100iso to 1600iso, but what exactly is the purpose? The higher iso, the more grainy the photos, why should anyone change the iso from 100 then if the pics only get grainier as you go up?

Ive noticed that alot of you use lightroom for RAW photo processing. Do you use photoshop after lightroom, or not at all? Does lightroom do everything you need? And How Big are RAW files usually anyway? Should an amateur photographer use JPEG over RAW? Would a 16gb SDHC card be fine for the big files of RAW?

What accessories should i be thinking of getting?

Ill prob have more questions later, but as of right now, these are my biggest, and i cant wait till my new g10 comes in at the end of the week!

Thanks everyone!
 
Eragon Dragonslayer said:
So today, i ordered a new camera, i ordered the Canon G10, and after looking at tons of reviews, i think i made a great decision. The reason i picked the G10 over a dedicated DSLR, is mainly portability.

I do have a couple questions tho, after looking at all the pics in the Pics i took 2009 thead, im currently reading DSLR & Photography for dummies (bought for $1 at Circuit City a few weeks ago) I still dont get a few things.

What exactly is ISO? The g10 comes with a dedicated iso knob from 100iso to 1600iso, but what exactly is the purpose? The higher iso, the more grainy the photos, why should anyone change the iso from 100 then if the pics only get grainier as you go up?

Ive noticed that alot of you use lightroom for RAW photo processing. Do you use photoshop after lightroom, or not at all? Does lightroom do everything you need? And How Big are RAW files usually anyway? Should an amateur photographer use JPEG over RAW? Would a 16gb SDHC card be fine for the big files of RAW?

What accessories should i be thinking of getting?

Ill prob have more questions later, but as of right now, these are my biggest, and i cant wait till my new g10 comes in at the end of the week!

Thanks everyone!
Click to expand...

ISO:

When you are shooting in dark conditions... you can't always get a shot with 100 iso if you don't wanna shoot under shutter speed of 1/60th. 1/60th is the point where it will knock out most camera shake from holding the camera still in your hand. Most photography for people has always been shot at iso 400 and when I took photography in college they made us used iso 400 film.

Raw/Lightroom/Photoshop..

Raw are pretty big files... They are generally the uncompressed image off the sensor. Depending on your camera it can be from 25 megs to 40 megs for bigger sensors.

Lightroom is kinda like your darkroom that you used to develop your film. Generally programs like this (aperture and there was another that was before lightroom came into play for pcs) are considered non destructive editing and treat your raw files like film and doesn't save any edits to the raw. You generally go Lightroom > then photoshop if you wanna do destructive editing. If you are wanting to learn photography use the Raw get use to them and get better over all looking shots. That 16gb is more then enough.

Acc:

Get an external flash like the 480EX2 and if you ever want to get into DSLR it will go right on to the canon's. You might wanna try to find the extra lenses that go in it.

You got a great camera... I'd love one myself and thinking about getting one. I have talked to a lot professional photographors that have even used that camera in a bind. I want one and that new Canon SD790 I think it is.
 
Oh and also that book you got isn't bad. I have looked through it and might get one just to have =D I have this big ass photography book that I got in college and it's dated yet still very very helpful when starting out.
 
The best part about shooting digital is ISO becomes very manageable especially when using programs like noise ninja where you can clean up most of the noise. In very dark environments you must shoot at a higher iso in order to be able to take a pic at all:)
 
What exactly is ISO?
Click to expand...

Didn't see this part actually answered -

ISO stands for International Standards Organization - the same group that specs motor oil for cars, companies for reliability, and sets standards worldwide. Photographically speaking the ISO value indicates *** how sensitive the image sensor is to light ***

This is a holdover from the film days - when you had to select a film based on how sensitive it was to light. To prevent different scales and whatnot - at some point in the 60's or 70's ISO stepped in and defined - X amount of light is equal to xxx value.

You don't need to get too deep into the formulae or shutter speed, etc to understand.

Essentially ISO 100 color negative film is a good film to use outdoors on bright sunny days. ISO 400 is a good all-purpose film for cloudy days, bright indoors, and has enough latitude to work in the sun and inside. ISO 1600 is good for dark indoor scenes.

The values and the amount of light do not change because your digital - in fact it makes it so you don't need to change films to change ISO values. Just press a button.

The "exposure triangle" - (you'll learn that soon enough) - is ISO, shutter speed, aperture. Varying these three things will vary the amount of light reaching your sensor/film. There is a narrow range of values that work with a particular amount of light - i.e. ISO 400, shutter 1/60, aperture f/7.1 might work for a cloudy day. Other values might give you the same amount of light but a different picture (like ISO 100, shutter 1/15, aperture f/7.1) THe amount of light is usually "relatively" referred to in "stops". as in "stops of aperture". You'll understand that soon enough.

ISO noise is roughly analagous to film grain in that as you increase ISO - you increase artifacts in the picture from the picture taking process. In film its grain. I'm sure you've seen a grainy picture. No detail, everything looks like you are looking through sand, sorta blocky and indistinct. In Digital its noise, which shows up as blocky, pixelly, ugly chunks all through the picture.

You would increase ISO to increase the sensitivity of your camera/film.

If you were taking pictures in a dark concert hall you would want a high ISO so that you could actually take a picture and have it come out - as the settings needed for that scene exceed the mechanical limits - and your ability to hold the camera steady.

In a beach scene you would want as low ISO as possible to maximize clarity (lack of noise) and give you the full gamut of options to creatively compose your picture.


Ive noticed that alot of you use lightroom for RAW photo processing. Do you use photoshop after lightroom, or not at all? Does lightroom do everything you need?
Click to expand...

Everyone has a different flow. Lightroom and Photoshop go hand in hand, but some features overlap. Lightroom is great for certain things, Photoshop is great for others. I happen to use the following flow:

Open RAW in Canon Digital Photo Pro (Canon's way to read RAW files) - view histo, examine exposure, set color balance and saturation. critically think about composition, crop if needed, Set white and black points, correct color if needed, add pre-sharpening,

Open the resulting .tiff in photoshop - use levels and curves to further adjust exposure - Clone out anything distracting if the image calls for it. Add unsharp mask if complete, otherwise go to lightroom for further color balance work and sharpen there.

And How Big are RAW files usually anyway? Should an amateur photographer use JPEG over RAW? Would a 16gb SDHC card be fine for the big files of RAW?
Click to expand...

The RAW's produced by my 350d are about 12-18MB. My wifes 50d produces 30-50MB RAW's.

It's a matter of personal preference. RAW need more work and just about guarantee some postprocessing is needed. JPG are limited in that you can't adjust the exposure or color balance as easily or quickly or nicely as RAW. I say if you PP every shot like I do - go RAW.

16GB is a LOT of room. I shoot with a 2GB and my wife has a couple 8GB and a couple 4GB CFs.

What accessories should i be thinking of getting?
Click to expand...

The book "understanding exposure" by "brian peterson". Critical to understanding well - exposure and how to get the picture every time - as opposed to either letting the camera do all the work, or guessing and getting lucky.

Oh and a tripod.


Just note that your G10 has a dinky image sensor at 1/1.7" vs. an APS-C (i.e. dslr sized sensor) - so one thing to note is that whatever your camera says is the aperture - its much smaller in relation to the same setting on a dslr or 35mm camera.

So don't be all that surprised when you take a photo at f/2.8 and you get the whole frame basically in focus - as opposed to doing the same with a dslr/35mm where only the subjects face would be in focus. Just a fact of life in the p&s world.
 
Wow, everyone, Thanks! I understand ISO now! Prim3 and Bobdole369 thanks for the big explanations, and you guys actually put it in terms i understand, thanks alot! Kadath that noobie guide is kickass!
 
Eragon Dragonslayer said:
Wow, everyone, Thanks! I understand ISO now! Prim3 and Bobdole369 thanks for the big explanations, and you guys actually put it in terms i understand, thanks alot! Kadath that noobie guide is kickass!
Click to expand...

If my shit seemed to dumbed down... its cause I sadly work in retail and have to make it retard friendly =D Thanks to Bobdole for really digging into ISO and what it is =D
 
Tip: shoot raw and post process with lightroom. You can do some amazing things in lightroom to save photos that would be tossed or degraded in JPEG.
 
While we're on the subject, I have several noobish questions about Lightroom. Currently at home I have the student version of CS1, and have been shooting jpg's and PP in Photoshop with less than optimal results, mostly just being lazy. My plan has been to wait 'till I could afford the pro CS4 suite, install on my newer rig, and then start shooting RAW once I had the horse-power for PP, but looks like I may have other options.

Apparently I completely missed the boat when Lightroom first came out, and am just now finally considering getting it as a cheaper alternative to the full CS4 package, since I really need to get in the habit of using RAW soon.

So my questions for now are:
1) Was Lightroom always an Adobe product? Or did Adobe purchase it from another company? What was the name previously? (not really important, just curious)
2) Why isn't Lightroom included in any of the CS4 packages? Is it redundant if you have PhotoShop CS4? (my understanding is that CS4 also has plenty of non-destructive adjustment tools)
3) Is any version of Photoshop required for Lightroom to function? The listings of it I’ve seen call it “Photoshop Lightroom” - Is it a plug-in or a stand-alone app? (or just a chopped down version like elements?)
4) Just for reference, what major Photoshop tools will I be missing if I switch to Lightroom? Does it have any stamping/repair tools? Dodge/Burn? Layers/Masking?
4) Lightroom 2 is the latest version, right? Anything else I should know before purchasing? Does it run ok on Vista Ult. x64?

The majority of the PP work I've been doing recently is just crop, levels, colors, etc, so Lightroom may be worth upgrading to just for the non-destructive nature of those tools. But I’m still not convinced it's worth the $$ just to upgrade from Photoshop CS1. Any help on that decision would be appreciated.
 
Got my new G10, it is by far the most sickest camera i have ever laid my paws on. The Pictures are gorgeous, Idk what to say, I <3 Lightroom! Its awesome, the program itself is so amazing, its just...awesome. Because of everyone that helped me, i definitely was able to pick it up and know what the basic controls are, i now use the iso dial and know exactly what im clicking on, idk what else i can say, but Thank You :D
 
madFive said:
While we're on the subject, I have several noobish questions about Lightroom. Currently at home I have the student version of CS1, and have been shooting jpg's and PP in Photoshop with less than optimal results, mostly just being lazy. My plan has been to wait 'till I could afford the pro CS4 suite, install on my newer rig, and then start shooting RAW once I had the horse-power for PP, but looks like I may have other options.

Apparently I completely missed the boat when Lightroom first came out, and am just now finally considering getting it as a cheaper alternative to the full CS4 package, since I really need to get in the habit of using RAW soon.


So my questions for now are:
1) Was Lightroom always an Adobe product? Or did Adobe purchase it from another company? What was the name previously? (not really important, just curious)
2) Why isn't Lightroom included in any of the CS4 packages? Is it redundant if you have PhotoShop CS4? (my understanding is that CS4 also has plenty of non-destructive adjustment tools)
3) Is any version of Photoshop required for Lightroom to function? The listings of it I’ve seen call it “Photoshop Lightroom” - Is it a plug-in or a stand-alone app? (or just a chopped down version like elements?)
4) Just for reference, what major Photoshop tools will I be missing if I switch to Lightroom? Does it have any stamping/repair tools? Dodge/Burn? Layers/Masking?
4) Lightroom 2 is the latest version, right? Anything else I should know before purchasing? Does it run ok on Vista Ult. x64?

The majority of the PP work I've been doing recently is just crop, levels, colors, etc, so Lightroom may be worth upgrading to just for the non-destructive nature of those tools. But I’m still not convinced it's worth the $$ just to upgrade from Photoshop CS1. Any help on that decision would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

1) Yea, Adobe developed it to compete with Aperture when it wasn't very good. Aperture has highly improved snice it's first release.

2) For many photographers, they want someone that will flow extactly how they worked back in the darkroom days. Lightroom and Aperture try to capture this and do a pretty good job. They treat your raw files has film negatives and have edits just like you would do with light projectors and development times in a darkroom. Lightroom/Aperture both retail at $200 and can be used competely stand alone and never touch photoshop.

3) Far as I know it's a standalone app and might have some plug-in stuff it comes with for CS4

4) I haven't used lightroom snice beta but only thing you prob wont have is the more destructive type tools of layers and mask. Also pen tool and the shuch.

5) Download the demo and play with. http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/?promoid=DJGSN_P_US_FP2_LR_MN&tt=P_US_FP2_LR_MN

edit: Just saw the price of lightroom.... If I had a mac, it's a no brainer to just get aperture for 100 dollars less.
 
Lightroom has alot of the basic features for Post Processing. For true photo editing you will want photoshop. One way to go to save some bucks is get lightroom and elements :D with elements you can do the vast majority of PS for like 65-70 bucks.
 
Eragon Dragonslayer said:
Got my new G10, it is by far the most sickest camera i have ever laid my paws on. The Pictures are gorgeous, Idk what to say, I <3 Lightroom! Its awesome, the program itself is so amazing, its just...awesome. Because of everyone that helped me, i definitely was able to pick it up and know what the basic controls are, i now use the iso dial and know exactly what im clicking on, idk what else i can say, but Thank You :D
Click to expand...

Congrats - sounds like fun! +1 thx to bobdole, very nicely laid out info - think there were a few things in there I didn't know either.

Prim3 said:
Just saw the price of lightroom.... If I had a mac, it's a no brainer to just get aperture for 100 dollars less.
Click to expand...

So Aperture is a mac-only application? That rules it out for me. I will definitely have to dl that Lightroom demo and see how it works - thx for the info! $200 for Lightroom is fine for a temporary solution 'till I can afford the full CS4 - I'll probably go ahead and get it.

I finally switched my camera over to raw last night, so I am officially on the path to better IQ! I'll have to see how my old P4 machine w/ CS1 handles the larger files, and if it's as bad as I think it will be, I'll start looking into the upgrade soon.
 
The majority of the PP work I've been doing recently is just crop, levels, colors, etc, so Lightroom may be worth upgrading to just for the non-destructive nature of those tools. But I’m still not convinced it's worth the $$ just to upgrade from Photoshop CS1. Any help on that decision would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

madfive - If your camera is a Canon dslr - consider using the "free" to canon users "Canon DPP" - which is Canon's method of RAW developing. Lets you do styles, contrast, exposure, histo, levels, white point, white balance, sharpening, etc. It's a tiny bit unwieldly at first but tutorials make it simple. Lets you do recipes so you have the same WB and levels on all pics from the same scene.
 
If I had a mac, it's a no brainer to just get aperture for 100 dollars less.
Click to expand...

Not really. Check around, ask what people are really using. Aperture would be an OK app if Lr didnt exist but they are very different products and I personally feel that Lr has a lot more CURRENT capability AND future by nature of it being cross platform.
 
madfive... if you are a student check out what kind of discount you can get through the school. You may be able to pick up the software (or at least a student version) for quite a bit cheaper. I am an alumni of University of Phoenix and I still receive the discounts. The school goes through JourneyEd which sells Lr2 for $99 (full retail version).
 
bobdole369 said:
madfive - If your camera is a Canon dslr
Click to expand...

nope, using nikon now, but I'd still rather not use their proprietary app either, as I'd be wary of how it integrates w/ my other graphics apps.

gregnash said:
madfive... if you are a student
Click to expand...

Wrong again ;) already graduated and may or may-not be using whatever I get next for pro uses. That's the primary reason I don't just install my old student versions of CS1 on the faster rig and just use that.

Thx again for all the info! I went ahead and ordered Lightroom to use for now, it's just $240 on amazon, which isn't terrible.
 
CS1 won't support the RAW file of modern cameras anyway. For the G10 I'm pretty sure you need the latest Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) which will only work with CS4.
 
madFive said:
Wrong again ;) already graduated and may or may-not be using whatever I get next for pro uses. That's the primary reason I don't just install my old student versions of CS1 on the faster rig and just use that.
Click to expand...

Doesnt really matter though. As an alumni I am still eligible for the "student" discounts on FULL Retail versions of the software. Just because you graduated doesnt necessarily mean that your school is going to dump you like a bad prom date. Unless you have other means of getting it cheap, you can always get the software through somewhere like JourneyEd for (sometime quite a bit) cheaper.

Just like on my schools page, I can get Lr2 for $99 while normal retail (adobe site) is $199. So it is at least worth the time to look.
 
bobdole369 said:
The RAW's produced by my 350d are about 12-18MB. My wifes 50d produces 30-50MB RAW's.

It's a matter of personal preference. RAW need more work and just about guarantee some postprocessing is needed. JPG are limited in that you can't adjust the exposure or color balance as easily or quickly or nicely as RAW. I say if you PP every shot like I do - go RAW..
Click to expand...

The RAW file sizes you posted are incorrect. We're talking file size on the card and the 50D file should be 15MB. My 40D produces a 10MB RAW file and my old 20D produced 8MB RAWs (it usually comes to 1MB per MegaPixel).

You can edit both Jpeg and RAW in the exact same way using Photoshop's Camera RAW.

the only drawback to using Jpeg is that it is already compressed and if you edit it and save it as a jpeg, you just compressed it again.

I prefer RAW but I have been lazy and most stuff I have shot recently isn't getting blown up, so I have been shooting Large Jpeg.
 
One other note on RAW, it actually does not NEED any more processing than JPG as cameras will embed the current parameters in the RAW file info and good RAW converters can read it back and produce the image just as the jpg would be produced by the cameras processor if you were shooting jpg.

The difference with RAW though is that those are just stored values that can be changed easily, with jpg the image itself has been modified and you cannot go back and change the values.
 
@GregNash - ya, I had to double-read your post - sounds like you did get a good deal there! Not sure what site my school uses now for software, but it's been several years since I got out, and it's not really worth the hastle to me to track down all that info (amazon one-click = super-easy :) ).

Also, if you're getting the student discount, you should be getting a student license. It has all the same functionality as the retail software, but if you read the fine print on the EUL you're not supposed to be using it for profit or business-related projects etc. Just to be on the safe side, I'd rather make sure I'm getting the pro license.
 
the raw size of my 10mp lumix fz28 are 11.7mb. since your camera is 14mp your raw's will probably be about 16mb in size. I shoot only raw.

I personally just use lightroom. some sharpen, crop, noise reduction is all I usually need to do. If its a really special rare shot that has problems then you can take it into photoshop. I hardly even use photoshop for my photography. Some people don't even do much with PP, they say "if it was good in the first place it wouldn't need PP". Others say everything needs a little PP, at least a sharpen. And there's the 3rd type that likes to get everything they possibly can out of a shot. It just depends who you are, you can get great shots no matter what.

i'd recommend getting lightroom, learning it, and shooting raw.
 
Zepher said:
You can edit both Jpeg and RAW in the exact same way using Photoshop's Camera RAW.

the only drawback to using Jpeg is that it is already compressed and if you edit it and save it as a jpeg, you just compressed it again.
Click to expand...

That's not entirely true. While you can use the same functions of ACR on both a RAW file and a JPEG (ever since CS3), they won't necessarily have the same effect. The JPEG format is limited to 8 bits per channel, while RAW files are only limited by the bit-depth of the camera's sensor. Depending on said bit-depth, a RAW file can have a dynamic range a full stop larger than its JPEG equivalent. You can't see this difference, of course -- your monitor is also only 8-bit -- but it does give you additional head room when processing your image.

Grentz said:
One other note on RAW, it actually does not NEED any more processing than JPG as cameras will embed the current parameters in the RAW file info and good RAW converters can read it back and produce the image just as the jpg would be produced by the cameras processor if you were shooting jpg.
Click to expand...

That also depends on the camera. Some manufacturers use more proprietary JPEG processing that is only supported by their own bundled RAW converter, which may or may not be "good." Some Panasonic models are this way.
 
I got CS3 and CS4 Pro through University of Washington while I was a student there and their deal was a student discount ($300 for each) for a retail version that has no limitations and is usable and upgradable for any purpose for life.

Also, I do plenty of enlargements for sale (16"20" - 24"x36") and as often as not I shoot .JPG. A good in-camera processor will handle the conversion just fine, and it saves you steps in your workflow and space. Also, if you're shooting any kind of event (rather than posed, landscape, or still-life) I recommend shooting bursts (facial expressions can make or break an image and change very quickly) and you can generally shoot more and faster in JPG than in RAW. I shoot RAW when I photograph concerts and other dark changing events, with ISO around 1600 and full manual aperture and shutter settings dependent on the stage lighting to avoid a spotlight or reflection from hosing my light metering, that way I can push the image a full stop brighter or darker (a stop and a half if I need to) to catch those images where the performer has moved into or away from the direct light.

The Adobe CS equivalent of lightroom is (kind-of) Bridge. CS2 needed a plug-in, but CS3 and 4 can display and handle RAW files from my Canon 5D without help. I do basic developing there then use photoshop for any retouching, color balancing, curves, branding, etc. Bridge can also help with file management, EXIF data, and is just overall a Godsend for my workflow.

As for as how much post processing it needs, remember you're taking analog light and making a digital image, most (all that I know of) camera's processors even add a little extra softness to smooth away pixelation, a perfect photo for me is one where I only have to import through Bridge to add my business info and any searchable keywords to the EXIF data, open in Photoshop to run the Unsharp Mask filter (I ALWAYS do this unless I want a soft focus glamour image), crop it to a certain aspect if I know the enlargement size I want, put my copyright brand in the corner then save as a maximum quality JPG to send to Adorama (www.adorama.com - fast, inexpensive, great options for sizes and papers (try the metallic) and the best quality I've found anywhere) to be printed. So there's always a little bit to do in post.

Though on principal, I agree, a good photographer will compose the right shot before he shoots, not after. That's not to say there's not some amazing artists who create incredible things in photoshop, but I don't think of that as photography as much as painting, of a sort.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top