question.....

**Y-S** · August 29th, 2006, 07:00 PM

I have a question, and I was wondering if I was right about this, if taking shots at night, and there's streetlights all around, and you need an external flash to get more light in, right? Or you got to increase your exposure/apeture to get more light in......right? Sorry for being new

Thanks whoever helps!

**samsite999** · August 29th, 2006, 07:06 PM

right, its unlikly that any external flash is going to be powerfull anoth to do any thing usefull out side, ur best bet is to use a tripod, have a lower shetter speed and if possable use a camera that can handle high ISO settings like 800 or 1600

**Y-S** · August 29th, 2006, 07:12 PM

Yes, exactly, I have been thinking about getting that trippy too, as I'll probably purchase it soon

High ISO settings, with RAW? I definitely agree with you having lower shutter speed too for sure!

Thanks for your response

**Morbid** · August 30th, 2006, 06:06 AM

Actually external flashes can work well for night photography if theyre powerful enough. Check out the work by Michael Frye. High ISO is good when your taking pictures hand held in low light, but to keep the noise levels down at night you might aswell use ISO 50 or 100 when using a tripod, since the shutter speeds are 1 sec plus anyways.

**makoblue** · August 30th, 2006, 08:46 AM

You'll also need to use your cameras self-timer or invest in a cable release to stop camera shake.

**Y-S** · August 31st, 2006, 02:22 PM

That's a good idea for sure mako, that def makes sense - cable release? I don't think I know about that one...

Good looks on feedback, thanks you two

By the way, most professional photographers use RAW, is that right?

**makoblue** · August 31st, 2006, 02:33 PM

Hey,

Originally Posted by Y-S

cable release? I don't think I know about that one...

A cable release is used to operate the shutter release button without actually touching the camera, thus preventing movement of the camera. Its like a piece of flex with a plunger on the end that you press to operate the shutter. However, not all cameras are compatible with these.

Originally Posted by Y-S

By the way, most professional photographers use RAW, is that right?

Yeah, but you'd have to invest in some large memory cards/storage devices in order to take a decent amount of pictures. If I remember correctly, RAW files are around 8MB. I never bothered on my camera, I just kicked the resolution up a bit.

**samsite999** · August 31st, 2006, 02:49 PM

if ur just getting used to things i wouldnt play with raw yet, learn the prinspals of photography first, or ur realy going to strugle. RAW is great, but its a lot more work, there needs to be a fair bit of post prosesing done to the image before it can be used

**Y-S** · August 31st, 2006, 02:50 PM

Ah I see, interesting

Also last question, can I ask that when using external flash, that's a must for taking shots at concerts, right? Especially like when you're on the stage, focusing on an artist....

**Y-S** · August 31st, 2006, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by samsite999

if ur just getting used to things i wouldnt play with raw yet, learn the prinspals of photography first, or ur realy going to strugle. RAW is great, but its a lot more work, there needs to be a fair bit of post prosesing done to the image before it can be used

Thanks, Sam - I still haven't switched to RAW

**makoblue** · August 31st, 2006, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by Y-S

Also last question, can I ask that when using external flash, that's a must for taking shots at concerts, right? Especially like when you're on the stage, focusing on an artist....

I wouldn't have thought that flash would be necessary in most cases at a concert. Although, after looking at a few links I did find this:

So, how can you take photos at a concert successfully? First of all, remember the “standard” rules for most concerts:

No flash photography
First 3 songs only
What the security guys say is Gospel

But I don't really know much about the subject so I'll just leave you with some links I found:

http://www.photo.net/learn/concerts/mirarchi/concer_i
http://www.boudist.com/archive/2006/...hotography.php
http://www.photocritic.org/2006/live...t-photography/

**Y-S** · September 1st, 2006, 04:14 AM

Thanks, I appreciate your support

**makoblue** · September 1st, 2006, 08:30 AM

Anytime.

**Fingers** · September 1st, 2006, 02:41 PM

Even cheap cameras often come with some type of a remote control device (possibly using IR light like a TV remote) you can use like you would a cable release on an SLR. The point is that you don't want to physically press the button on the camera itself when you do a long exposure, because that's going to shake it. An alternative is to use the self-timer function so you can press the button, let go of the camera and it takes the picture a few seconds later.

**Y-S** · September 2nd, 2006, 09:32 PM

Yeah man I agree ^^

Also another question, can I ask how/what do I detect how the powerful flash is? Is there numbers that specifies the weakness, or powerfulness?

Thanks

**Morbid** · September 3rd, 2006, 06:43 AM

The power is in watts. I dont know how many watts makes a powerful flash but Im sure theres some info online.

**Y-S** · September 3rd, 2006, 04:00 PM

Hmmm yeah I think I remember now....lol

I'll be sure to post up some pictures

**Y-S** · September 4th, 2006, 04:18 AM

Another question, can I ask that how do you do that like, when taking a picture, and on the picture, on the center is straight and then on the both sides top, bottom, left and right are curve? I'm guessing it's that called wide angle lens right? Do I need a wide angle lens in order to do all that or change something in the control of your camera? Thanks...

edit: Or do the "hood lens" work like that?

**Morbid** · September 4th, 2006, 04:22 AM

Do you mean like this: http://www.anti-matter-3d.com/On_Set...me_Fisheye.jpg

You get that effect with a fisheye lens. It has no perspective correction, but a great field of view. Regular wide angles have perspective correction and will not give you this effect.

**Y-S** · September 4th, 2006, 04:26 AM

Yes, something like that I have been thinking in my mind, exactly!

Fisheye lens, I don't think I knew that or heard that before, thanks man, I will look up onto them

**Y-S** · September 4th, 2006, 04:29 AM

Damn!

They cost like almost a grand lol...

**Morbid** · September 4th, 2006, 04:42 AM

Yea, but there are cheaper manual ones. Check Ebay for Zenitar and Peleng. As I said they are full manual lenses, but setting perfect focus is not that neccesary since they have a huge depth of field, everytning is in focus. You will have to set the aperture manually though.

**Y-S** · September 4th, 2006, 04:55 AM

Yeah it's okay, I like manual though, gives you more experience with the camera, right? So I don't think zenitar or peleng would be appropiate for my camera....I should probably check the manual though, I dunno...

But don't ya think they should be worth it as the cheaper ones have probably less something/features than costly ones?

**Morbid** · September 4th, 2006, 05:18 AM

Both zenitar and peleng has adapters for Canon and Nikon and other big brands. What camera do you have?

Quality wise they are good. Feature wise... well, they have whats necessary nothing more. The peleng has a nice aperture lock thing that lets you switch between wide open (so you have a nice bright view in the viewfinder), and normal for taking the picture.

**Y-S** · September 6th, 2006, 01:48 PM

I use nikon

Btw, also about lenses specifications, am I right what I'm thinking that is does this mean, for example, "Nikon AF 10.5mm F2.8"......f2.8.....this means maximum f2.8? or does this mean it has only f2.8? and 10.5 mm is how zoom's distance, right?

Another example, "Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX - Canon EF Mount", f/ <---- means f minus, right? Shit's kinda confusing with all these different letters and numbers on every lenses LOL...

**Morbid** · September 6th, 2006, 01:58 PM

The f- number is in fact a division between the focal length f (50mm for instance) and the f-number. f/2.8 means the diameter of the aperture hole is (focal length)/2.8 mm. Lower number means bigger aperture and the lens lets in more light, giving you faster shutter speeds. So a lower f number is "better" in a way.
Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6, this lens can go from 12-24 mm focal length ("zoom"), it can use f/4.5 at the wide end 12mm and f/5.6 at tele.
Hope that made some sense.

**Y-S** · September 6th, 2006, 02:10 PM

Ya I understand what the apeture is, but the thing is I don't really understand the specifications on lens.....I wish it would be more easier to read and simpler, ya know, or maybe I don't understand the writing on what lens are...

So, what's the difference between f/2.8 and f2.8 then? Without, "/", what's that symbol mean? I didn't really understand the last sentence, the one above "hope"

Thanks...

**Morbid** · September 6th, 2006, 02:24 PM

f/2.8 and f2.8 means the same, its just abbreviated. The / is the division so the correct way to write it is f/2.8. When there is two f numbers in the specification the lowest one is for the wide angle and the highest is for the tele.

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6

At 12mm this lens has biggest aperture f/4.5, and at 24mm is has the biggest aperture f/5.6.

**Y-S** · September 6th, 2006, 02:31 PM

You know, I think you're a real good teacher lol.....I think I kinda get it now, but I'll be sure to do more research on my own too, thanks and thanks those who helped

**samsite999** · September 6th, 2006, 02:33 PM

well, i think we all had a leson there!!! thanks Morbid, and i mean that. I may pull some of that info for a photo tech term guide im thinkning of doing, is that ok?