DSLR Camera Photography Tips

[bchaltraw]

1. Throw the Nikon away.


I shoot with Canon stuff...I had to

Aperture wide open depends on the lens. If you're on a super-fast lens, you may lose enough depth of field.

I tend to shoot in shutter priority. The fastest lens I'll shoot with is F/4 so that mode plus auto ISO usually works well. Exposure compensation usually ticks toward the positive side by 2/3-1 stop to help with bright skies. All depends on what you have in each frame.

Yes, servo focus mode with a smaller zone should help stay locked on.

Also, back up and use a longer lens. Camera movement speed upward is reduced; making for more success and not needing crazy high shutter speeds. Trying to be close equals frustration.

Practice. I still suck at it, but am getting better the more I shoot rockets...

Maybe it’s a Cannon Issue not an Operator issue…. If you were shooting a Nikon you’d have better photos! SHOTS FIRED! lol

 

[DigBaddy]

Maybe it’s a Cannon Issue not an Operator issue…. If you were shooting a Nikon you’d have better photos! SHOTS FIRED! lol

Yeah, I know, it's total garbage equipment.

 

[DirkTheDaring]

Does anyone have any tips for seeing the image in the screen for outside video? I have a Canon EOS Rebel and when I switch to video finding the image switches from the small view finder to the screen. The trouble for outside video is that the screen seems to be swamped by daylight and is too bright to clearly see the image.

You can buy shades. I’m experimenting with them now. Plenty of choices on Amazon. But ultimately you need a viewfinder. It’s a problem for my small Canon and my big Canon, not too mention smart phones. I just bought an old fashioned camcorder (cheap used) because it has a viewfinder.

 

[Dave P]

I set to manual aperture and shutter speed. Auto ISO, let it float. 1/2000 or higher, f8 or higher depending on light. Autofocus to "fast action/sports." Set shutter rate to high speed. Portrait aspect. A 300mm lens is usually close enough for high power. A 400mm is nice for detail, but more frames of smoke. 400mm nice on chutes.

Teach LSO to press button on zero, launch or start, not 1, or seconds after zero. Expect frames of smoke or the no-go.

Don't worry about megapixels, the new programs to double the pixel count for huge prints are very good.

A good used Canon 1D Mark IV is fairly inexpensive and very fast with RAW. You won't risk your latest and greatest cam to the wilds.

 

[OverTheTop]

Don't worry about megapixels, the new programs to double the pixel count for huge prints are very good.

Unfortunately megapixels do matter. There is an effect where you can have enough pixels to resolve the details of the image correctly but the colors are not imaged correctly. It is a real thing, and why generally more pixels are better.

Then there is the argument that less pixels, but larger, give better low-light performance...

Personally I prefer more pixels for my photography.

 

[Hobie1dog]

Do all of you have cameras with a pop-up flash so that you can use in the daytime to eliminate all the dark faces from people wearing hats, or with the sun behind them? We have a Canon EOS 30 camera which is like brand new but we bought it probably about the time when digital was just starting to come out and we couldn't afford a digital camera, so it has set in the case most of its life. But the newer cameras that I'm looking at like the Canon 7D, have built-in flash, but the high end ones do not, like the 1D.

 

[FredA]

The more "pro" bodies skip the built-in flash.
Cramps the [E]VF and considered more of a liability (weak hot shoe) than a benefit for pro's since the will use a real flash as needed.

The latest Nikon's mirrorless have a pre-trigger mode - captures JPEG's at 30fps ahead of the shutter press.
Just turn on the mode and wait for the actual take-off to push the shutter button.
Can't miss.

 

[Hobie1dog]

The more "pro" bodies skip the built-in flash.
Cramps the [E]VF and considered more of a liability (weak hot shoe) than a benefit for pro's since the will use a real flash as needed.

Well I figured walking around with a flash unit either on the camera or having to grab it occasionally when you know the person's face is in the dark shadow

 

[Hobie1dog]

The more "pro" bodies skip the built-in flash.
Cramps the [E]VF and considered more of a liability (weak hot shoe) than a benefit for pro's since the will use a real flash as needed

what do you guys do when a person's face is too dark because of the hat or because the sun is behind them as I would not want to carry around another flash unit it seems to be cumbersome, so do the new DSLR cameras have something to compensate for that?

 

[jadebox]

Unfortunately megapixels do matter. There is an effect where you can have enough pixels to resolve the details of the image correctly but the colors are not imaged correctly. It is a real thing, and why generally more pixels are better.

Then there is the argument that less pixels, but larger, give better low-light performance...

Personally I prefer more pixels for my photography.

What matters most is the resolution of the camera which is only tangentially related to the number of pixels. As an example, I have a 4 megapixel camera that takes better photos under most circumstances than any 12 megapixel cellphone. It has a large glass lens and a sensor larger than most DSLRs.

Having said that, it is amazing what software has done to allow small cameras with cheap lenses take amazing photos. I'd love to see Google make an SLR which incorporates all those neat things I can do on my phone.

 

[jadebox]

what do you guys do when a person's face is too dark because of the hat or because the sun is behind them as I would not want to carry around another flash unit it seems to be cumbersome, so do the new DSLR cameras have something to compensate for that?

You fix that in post.

In Photoshop you can adjust highlights and shadow which is usually a quick way to fix issues like that. The result isn't perfect, but it will usually bring out enough details from the shadows to make the image look good.

 

[jadebox]

The latest Nikon's mirrorless have a pre-trigger mode - captures JPEG's at 30fps ahead of the shutter press.
Just turn on the mode and wait for the actual take-off to push the shutter button.
Can't miss.

My Casio EF-X1 has that feature. It really does take luck out of the equation for capturing lift-off photos.

 

[OverTheTop]

What matters most is the resolution of the camera which is only tangentially related to the number of pixels. As an example, I have a 4 megapixel camera that takes better photos under most circumstances than any 12 megapixel cellphone. It has a large glass lens and a sensor larger than most DSLRs.

Having said that, it is amazing what software has done to allow small cameras which cheap lenses take amazing photos.

The first part of your post is correct. "What matters most is the resolution of the camera". Resolution is determined by number of pixels.

Your DSLR will gather more light and probably end up with less "noise" in the image. This is one of the main advantages of a large imaging chip. The disadvantage is cost, and is why phone cameras have smaller chips.

The circle of confusion will also be a bit smaller and less likely to see any diffraction effects in the image. That will help with resolution but if the imaging chip is lacking pixels there is nothing to be done to improve the situation.

You can't interpolate your way out of a low-resolution image. Don't believe everything you see on the TV crime shows. The original image is lacking the information needed for high resolution of details, and as mentioned earlier color rendition suffers badly.

 

[Hobie1dog]

You fix that in post.

In Photoshop you can adjust highlights and shadow which is usually a quick way to fix issues like that. The result isn't perfect, but it will usually bring out enough details from the shadows to make the image look good.

well I'm never going to pay $23 a month for Photoshop, so that's out of the question, and paying high dollar rent doesn't allow for things like that

 

[Dave P]

What matters most is the resolution of the camera which is only tangentially related to the number of pixels. As an example, I have a 4 megapixel camera that takes better photos under most circumstances than any 12 megapixel cellphone. It has a large glass lens and a sensor larger than most DSLRs.

Having said that, it is amazing what software has done to allow small cameras with cheap lenses take amazing photos. I'd love to see Google make an SLR which incorporates all those neat things I can do on my phone.

No matter what photography tip or opinion presented in any forum, someone always has the opposite view of everything. That's why I did not want to post any photo tips for shooting rockets, but I couldn't help myself.

 

[OverTheTop]

well I'm never going to pay $23 a month for Photoshop, so that's out of the question, and paying high dollar rent doesn't allow for things like that

If you get good with your camera you should be able to get by without PS. I use ACDSEE 14 and it has all the features I need to finesse a decent photo and make it better. They probably have a later version by now. Been using it for a decade or two.

If you need to do masking, layers and other cleverness then you might need PS. I have never found the need yet.

The best I have done in competitions is only equal second in a national comp. Not too shabby.

 

[Hobie1dog]

If you get good with your camera you should be able to get by without PS. I use ACDSEE 14 and it has all the features I need to finesse a decent photo and make it better. They probably have a later version by now. Been using it for a decade or two.

If you need to do masking, layers and other cleverness then you might need PS. I have never found the need yet.

The best I have done in competitions is only equal second in a national comp. Not too shabby.

I have one picture of my wife and daughter and none of us like the picture of my daughter and I've been looking for somebody that was good with Photoshop that could wipe her out of the picture and just save up wifes picture. Then change the background. i guess I would probably be easily done in Photoshop?

 

[jadebox]

well I'm never going to pay $23 a month for Photoshop, so that's out of the question, and paying high dollar rent doesn't allow for things like that

Look at Photoshop Elements. It is $99, I think. Not a subscription.

It has pretty much every feature of Photoshop that most people will need hidden under an easier-to-use facade. Even though I have the full version of Photoshop, I find Elements easier and quicker to use for common things like red-eye removal.

 

[jadebox]

I have one picture of my wife and daughter and none of us like the picture of my daughter and I've been looking for somebody that was good with Photoshop that could wipe her out of the picture and just save up wifes picture. Then change the background. i guess I would probably be easily done in Photoshop?

Yeah, it is almost trivial to do that in both Photoshop and Photoshop Elements.

 

[aerostadt]

I found a sun screen hood on the internet made from scratch and made a similar one for the LCD screen when taking outdoor movies. It helps, but it is not perfect. The length is 5 inches, which I cannot focus well with my glasses on, so I need to take the glasses off. There is a simple elastic that is held in place with tape that works like a charm.

 

[troj]

You fix that in post.

In Photoshop you can adjust highlights and shadow which is usually a quick way to fix issues like that. The result isn't perfect, but it will usually bring out enough details from the shadows to make the image look good.

...which is why you always want to shoot in RAW. That way, you get all the data and have a much better ability to fix things.

-Kevin