Shutter Geek Lab

SheBloom Photo Shoot

2017-07-19T07:31:00.001-07:00

My wife owns a small company called SheBloom. She needed me to take photos for her upcoming line of clothes for the print catalog and website. In the past she's used professional photographers that I admire, this time I was going to be the one behind the camera and I was a little nervous.

I'd been working up to this position by first purchasing a Canon 6D. I know the mark ii version is coming out soon, but I couldn't wait, plus I couldn't afford the $2,000 price tag. For the last couple weeks I've been practicing with the camera and the new perspective it affords me. All my lenses look different through this camera compared to my 7D due to the crop sensor, and I love it! The 50mm lens looks just as I've read about the true life perspective. My tiny 50mm 1.8 has new life and it looks great. But for this shoot, I can't get cute with the big aperture. I've ruined too many photos when it was important to get more in focus than I did.

I ended up choosing my 24-105mm F/4 L version 1 lens. I figured I didn't need the larger aperture, but instead required the zoom flexibility when shooting toddlers. I also packed my Yongnuo flash and Magmod Sphere just in case I need extra light to battle unwanted shadows.

The setting was next to a small vineyard in San Juan Capistrano. Our family had some photos taken there and my wife liked the rustic charm. When we got there the wind was blowing pretty hard, so I decided to have all models facing the wind to keep the hair out of their faces.

I read an article somewhere that battle-front photographers had a phrase, "f/8 and be there". That meant the aperture f/8 is a good general setting to have on your camera to make sure everything you need will be in focus. I started with f/8 and f/9, then when I felt comfortable with the photos I had, I would switch to f/5.6 for a little more artsy vision. To accommodate the smaller apertures while keeping a shutter speed of at least 1/200 second, I opted to increase my iso to 500. I don't want motion blur, but I also despise a noisy photo from high iso's.

A photo from the shoot, early in
the editing phase. 80mm f/8 iso 500

With these principles in place, I was ready to shoot. I had my Yongnuo flash on a stand and a wireless transmitter on top of my camera ready in case I needed the light.

I was very focused on keeping the subject sharp. My apertures were usually f/8 or f/9, though I realize I could have gone with even smaller apertures when reviewing the images on my computer.

The photo to the right was taken early in the shoot. When I zoomed in close I could see a little bit of noise, but I also thought the image wasn't as sharp as I'd like. It was semi-sharp, though I was able to get better images in the past. Overall I'd rate the images from the shoot a B+, but in the end the wife was happy so I'll upgrade that to an A-.

I think I needed more light. I used my flash for many of the photos, but I think I needed another one for more light. In some cases when I shot with the same settings but more light I was able to get a sharper photo. I also think poor focusing played a part in the degradation of some of the photos. Later in the shoot I decided to open up the aperture to f/4.5 for some baby shots and noticed much of the gown was sharp, but not the eyes. Live and learn I guess.

Here are a few more photos from the shoot. What do you think? Go ahead, be brutal. I can take it, I just want to get better.

A Video Short

2013-01-04T21:36:00.001-08:00

When I say short, I mean short. I just wanted to take a few shots in my (sorf of) back yard to see what the footage would look like on Youtube. I also wanted to test the editing features of the Canon 7D coupled with the other editing features provided by Youtube. I think given it took me about 15 minutes to put this video together, it's not bad.

I started with some shots showing the peacefulness of T-Street beach in the morning. The surf was small and it is winter here now, so there was not much going on at 7:00 in the morning, but it was clear and beautiful.

I wanted to show off the reason why one would shoot such a video with this camera, depth of field. Without the need of a large aperture, I'd just as soon shoot the video with my iPhone. While I didn't worry about image stabalization, I did try to anchor myself as best I could. As you can see in the video I also manually changed the focus to try to tell a story with the different, yet complementary backgrounds.

When editing the video in the camera, I used the intuitive controls. You can't move frame by frame, but you can get close. I imagine this would be helpful for someone who wants to do rough edits before sitting down to a computer to upload all the raw footage. After cutting each video clip, I had the opportunity to either save the file as a new one, or over write the original file. I elected to over write each file since this was not a video I was very concerned about.

The Youtube editing was quick and easy. The toughest task was choosing the music. I ended up choosing a music clip that matched my emotions that morning.

Eden in SheBloom

2012-11-28T21:44:00.000-08:00

My wife has a small business called SheBloom. SheBloom outfits little girls with boutique-style clothing. Often my wife needs some product shots taken for the website. Our latest shoot used a friend's baby girl named Eden.

During our latest shoot I hit on something obvious, but until now never uncovered. I needed to overexpose the shot a little to make the baby pop. Couple that with a little depth of field play and you get shots like this:

Eden in SheBloom clothing. 27mm. f/2.8 1/250 Sec.
Flash set to about 1/8 power.

I was stunned when I saw the image on my computer. The eyes clearly grab you along with the pouty lips and the blurred focus background that draws you back to the eyes. Everything was sharp where I wanted it to be and blurred out in the right places. While I submitted the camera settings in the photo caption, that only tells part of the story of this image.

First we set up the bed with white everywhere. A white bedspread with white pillows in the background allowed us to preserve a bright atmosphere and create a dreamy backdrop. The next step was to prep the model. Wipes were readily handy because baby faces get dirty easily, and Photoshopping an image will never compare to getting it right at the moment of capture.

Once Eden was ready, I prepped the camera with a couple of shots. I mounted my 430 EX II (for which I had the 600, but that is for another blog post) onto the camera and pointed it up and away from Eden. Since I was in a small room I knew I could bounce the light from the ceiling and walls to give a more natural look to the image. Remember - The larger the light source the more natural the light will appear in the image.

This is how I positioned my flash for
Eden's photo above.

It might seems strange to point the flash away from the subject, but knowing I could use my wall as a larger light source I could then obtain a more natural look to the final image. Here is a sketch of the room and how we were positioned as well as the placement of the flash. I had light bouncing from the walls and ceiling.

Once I had my settings dialed in, I started to shoot lots of shots. While my wife and Eden's mom were rattling noise makers above my head, I kept moving in front of Eden's face trying to capture her eyes directly into my lens.

One final tip I noticed made a difference in the quality of my photos was raising the exposure value in Lightroom. Making the whites whiter as well as pushing the contrast made an ok photo look much better.

Before

After

Taking Family Christmas Photos

2012-11-24T22:54:00.001-08:00

I recently had my first paid gig. My friends Laurie and Brandon asked me to take photos of their extended family on Laurie's side. I met everyone (10 members in all) at the pier in San Clemente. I was both excited and nervous at the same time. I knew I could get great shots, but will I?

I mad sure the batteries were charged, sensor was clean, and memory cards were emptied. I knew there would be no way I'd fill all 32 gigs of memory, but it is better to be safe than sorry.

I thought about lighting for a while. Should I bring my Speedlight? Should I bring a bounce reflector? If I bring this stuff should I bring an assistant? As the questions started piling up, my wife said, "Keep it simple". So I did just that, I brought my Canon 7D with my 24-70 L 2.8, and my 430 EX II. Nothing out of the ordinary, just a guy with his camera and on-camera flash. I was hoping my manuverability would overcome my ability to overcome lighting limitations. I was going to have to rely on my knowledge of lighting to create interesting photos instead of using manufactured lighting to give me what I wanted.

How did it turn out? At the end of the shoot I was exhausted. I had been thinking hard for 2 hours straight and I was spent. I filled both 16GB cards and my right hand was cramping. I had no idea you could get fatigued like that by just taking photos.

Here are a sampling of my favorites from the shoot.

Once I was done with editing the photos and uploading them to Costco for the client's printing needs, I decided to create an Animoto video to present the photos. In a few short minutes my video was ready for viewing. I skipped off to show my work to Laurie and her mother. Here is the video I showed them.

They were thrilled. Laurie immediately ordered prints at Costco and framed them in her house. They had photos to share on Facebook and more for the photo albums. For me, it felt good to be a part of family memories that will last a lifetime.

Beach Babe Photo

2012-01-05T13:25:00.000-08:00

Click on the photo for a larger view.

Here is a photo I took of my daughter, Bella. It was an unusually warm November day and we decided to spend some time at the beach. I was also anxious to test my 430 ex ii against the sun. With the San Clemente pier in the background I began firing away. My first thought was to have the sun provide both a back light and rim light for Bella, check. The sun was at 11:00 and providing lots of light.

Since I had plenty of light I knew I could use a fast shutter speed. I started with setting my aperture to f/5 mostly because I wanted to make sure Bella would be sharp and I knew my Tamron lens didn't get sharp enough until I stopped down to f/4. I chose f/5 also because I wanted to include the pier as a reference, but still wanted Bella to be the focal point, I was afraid f/4 would blur the background too much since I was only 5 feet away from her.

The shutter speed had to be fast. Even though the aperture was stopped down I still had too much light for a good exposure. This is where I used the camera's light meter to tell me where to set the shutter speed. I was going for a slight underexposure to help Bella pop a little more when I lit her with the flash.

Next I had to set the flash. I didn't want to think about this setting so I set the flash to ETTL, or automatic. The purpose of the flash is to provide a fill light for Bella's face. since I was exposing for the background I knew her face would be too dark to see, so I added some light.

One I had my settings it was a matter of patience before I had the shot I wanted. Bella was busy practicing her hand stands and digging holes next to me. The photo I settled on was probably the 10th photo I took in the series.

Sunset Surfer Photo

2012-01-04T19:45:00.001-08:00

At best I think this image is interesting. The cool part is I shot the exact photo I wanted to, actually it would looked better if the surfer was closer to the water. If you're curious how I created the photo you can play the video below.

Here is the filter I used for the Surfer photograph.

I used my new polarizing filter I ordered from Amazon. I was anxious to see if it would enhance the colors of the photo, unfortunately I didn't take a photo without the filter. I think I was too excited to have a subject to photograph that I wasn't thinking of taking comparison shots. The filter was made by B+H. I heard you don't want to fool with cheap filters, especially when you invest in an expensive lens like the 24-70. I paid about $150 for this filter.

The Canon 24-70mm F/2.8 L is a Keeper

2011-12-31T19:27:00.000-08:00

Now that I've had a couple of days to play with my new (actually used but new to me) Canon 24-70mm lens I can say I am glad I bought it. This is exactly what the hype is all about.

My first shots of our new born child confirmed this lens is sharp, even wide open. Obviously stopping the lens down will give sharper images, but I am fine shooting at 2.8. This is a big improvement over my Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 VC lens. I know there is a big difference in price, but I was skeptical that the Canon images would be twice as good as those shot with the Tamron lens.

Here are the photos displayed on the video above. I realize they're not the best photos just yet. I just wanted to take some test shots. You can click on each photo to view my comments.

The final straw with the Tamron lens came when our son Presley was born the other day. I hadn't received the Canon lens yet and was stuck capturing the moment with the Tamron. The lighting was less than optimal and the lens was hunting to find the focus point. I handed the camera over to a nurse to take a photo of me and my son and the lens never stopped hunting. She was confused and I was fuming. At that point I was better off with my camera phone.

That night the lens came. I stopped home to take a shower and pick up the lens. I drove back to take some shots of Mom and baby. There was an instant difference. Not only could I get acceptable shots at 2.8, but there were no more focus issues, just frame and shoot.

The build quality is supreme, but that can be good or bad. The good is I have no fear of bumping the lens, the bad is the lens is heavy..

The only improvement I would make on this lens is image stabalization. I tried to take a few shots in low light that required slow shutter speeds around 1/30th of a second, but I haven't had much success even zoomed out at 24mm.

24-70 or 24-105

I can sum up the debate between these two lenses with a short story. Not long ago I was in the heat of researching my next lens when I took my kids to Legoland, California. We were in line for a ride when I spotted a guy with the 24-105 hanging around his neck (obviously attached to a DSLR body). I said, "Nice lens. Do you like it over the 24-70?"

The guy responded, "The 24-70 is a nice lens".

That is all he said, but he didn't have to say any more. Clearly he had regret over not purchasing the 24-70 and experienced similar limitations I found using the 70-200mm F/4. Even with IS you still need a lot of light for and F/4 lens, and you probably need to stop down.

Why I Didn't Like the Canon 70-200mm L USM

2011-12-26T22:10:00.000-08:00

The lens I wanted to love.

The title of this post says it all, but let me show you why I returned the lens. Perhaps I should begin with the video I posted on Youtube.

Here are the sample photos I mentioned in the video.

As a result of these findings I opted to return the Canon 70-200mm F/4 L USM lens. Don't get me wrong, I wanted to love this lens. I knew proper light was going to be an issue for this lens given the smaller aperture, but after reading reviews on Amazon I decided to give it a go.

In the end I decided to go with another strategy. I purchased the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L lens from Adorama. The lens will arrive December 29 and I will then compare it to my current Tamron 17-50mm f 2.8. I'm expecting the results to be strikingly different with the Canon outperforming the Tamron significantly. My full report will be updated on this blog. If everything goes well I will sell the Tamron and save up for the Canon 135mm L lens.

In closing I'm disappointed with my introduction to the L lens line. I was so excited when I researched the lens and found excellent reviews and tests shots on other sites. I spent several hours on The Digital Picture examining the ISO12233 shots and thought the lens would match the hype. I'm not sure what happened but I do know what I saw in those photos.

Help Me Pick A Lens

2011-12-05T22:12:00.001-08:00

Here is the poll.

Another Self Portrait

2011-08-07T23:01:00.000-07:00

I though my last self portrait was a little plain. So I thought I'd get creative and try something new. This was the 27th attempt at this type of photo. Keep in mind this is one frame, I did not use Photoshop to create this image. This is an 18 second exposure with two pops of my 430 ex ii.

Reflecting on this shot I hope I don't appear creepy. The low angle of the pop on the left combined with the gaze on the right could send mixed messages and ultimately a rejected feeling by the viewer. I really had no idea what to do for the first pop so I sat there, the second pop I wanted to look into the camera, but my eyes were still adjusting so my biggest challenge was to find the right side of the lens so I didn't occupy the same part of the frame for both pops.

This photo is more about control of light than it is anything else and that is why I'm proud of the shot. Maybe next time I'll get creative and make it look like I'm having fun at the same time.

Self Portrait

2011-08-06T21:10:00.000-07:00

My Self Portrait

I thought it would be a good exercise to create a self portrait, so I gathered a couple of Speedlites and my 7D and went to work. I admit the photo could be more creative, but I wanted a no frills image with more time spent on lighting than anything else.

I thought it would also be a good idea to record a short video on my setup for the photo.

500px Rocks!

2011-08-05T21:23:00.000-07:00

Learning to fly by Anja Pixel-Passion

If you haven't visited 500px.com by now you should. I've come across the most amazing photos on this site, like the one by Anja Pixel- Passion. I decided to include this photo in my post because of the composition and creativity expressed throughout the frame. I've tried to shoot silhouettes but they never came out this good. I took a look at the camera data provided on 500px.com and saw the photographer used a reasonably big aperture, faster shutter speed, and wide angle to get the shot. I never would have thought an aperture like f/5 would give you enough depth of field to get the girl and the birds in focus, but I guess it doesn't matter much when shooting at a focal length of 28mm.

Canon or Tamron?

2011-08-04T21:34:00.000-07:00

The Canon lens is on the left
and the Tamron is on the right.

One of the big questions of many photo enthusiasts who want a standard range zoom lens is which one to purchase, the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 or the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8? Is the Canon worth approximately 3 times more than the Tamron? Let me help you decide.

My friend was kind enough to loan me his Canon 17-55mm to help me with the comparison to my Tamron competitor. Initially I was surprised at the size of the Canon lens, it's quite a bit larger than the Tamron. Combined with the lens hood you'd think this was a telephoto lens.

The Canon 17-55mm f2.8

The build quality of the lenses are comparable, tough plastic with a metal mount. To be honest this doesn't bother me, in fact I prefer the plastic housing if it makes the lens lighter. One edge I'll give the Canon lens is the manual focus ring and the ability to override the auto focus. This is not a feature on the Tamron lens, in fact I broke an old Tamron lens by manually focusing while in auto focus mode.

Sharpness is comparable for both lenses, in fact I could make a decision on which one was sharper. I didn't conduct any lab experiments or anything technical, just a little pixel peeping in Lightroom. Both lenses were sharp even at slow shutter speeds with the image stabailzation switched on. I was able to get acceptable shots at 1/20 sec while at 50mm for each lens.

The auto focus is one area where I did see a significant difference in performance. The Tamron had trouble in low light a couple of time and had to hunt around to find the right focus point. During the hunting phase you can hear the loud motor winding the barrel of the lens while I waited for the lens to focus. The Canon on the other hand quietly found its focus point, even if it had to hunt a little you'd hardly notice the quiet motor quickly spinning the barrel of the lens. While Canon wins this round, I know Tamron already released a 70-300mm lens with a comparable auto focus motor comparable to Canon Ultrasonic Motor. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before Tamron lends this technology to the rest of its lens lineup and eventually to the 17-50mm.

So what is the answer to the question? Canon or Tamron? If I had the money I would buy the Canon lens because there is nothing not to like other than the size and weight. I imagine it can get a little tiring having to carry the lens around for an entire day. But if you're on a budget and are looking to get the biggest bang for your buck, I'd go with the Tamron time after time.

Canon 50mm 1.4 Review

2011-08-02T10:20:00.000-07:00

The Good: This lens is one of my favorite lenses. The 1.4 maximum aperture is incredible, giving me the ability to use the lens with very little light. Couple this with a 430 EX II and you have a system that will give you incredible images in any situation.

The sharpness is outstanding, although I did have some front focusing issues and had to use the Canon 7D menu feature to make adjustments. I do notice a big difference in sharpness when I stop down to F/4 or higher (smaller aperture). I generally like to shoot with this aperture because of the increased sharpness and the depth of field. I know many like to have a shallower DOF but I find it harder to keep my subject in focus with the bigger apertures, using a smaller aperture gives me a larger margin of error when shooting. I'd rather have the photo with more in focus than not have the photo at all.

The build quality is good, not great. Many people complain about a lens when it's not made from metal, but I actually like the lighter plastics, they are easier to carry and hold in place for longer periods of time. For me lighter is better.

The focusing is fast and quiet with no hunting regardless of light quality. This is a sharp contrast with my Tamron lens that will spend some time hunting for the right focus while annoying me with the loud motor turning the focus ring. It seems the USM motor that Canon produces on their lenses is reliable throughout as I also have a 10-22mm with the same motor and same quick and quiet auto focus.

I notice a big difference in chromatic aberration when I stop down the lens, I have no idea if this has any scientific merit, but this is my finding.

The Bad: The lens doesn't come with a lens hood. I'd recommend not purchasing the official hood from Canon, instead pick up a third party hood from B&H.

This is a prime lens which means your feet are the zoom. I realize this the big reason why many purchase this lens in the first place, knowing the compromise with having better sharpness and chromatic aberration control is the inability to zoom from the barrel of the lens. My problem though is using the lens with my Canon 7D crop sensor, sometimes I find myself indoors and I have no room to move back to get my entire subject in the frame. I think for this reason you will need to also purchase a 17-50mm zoom lens. Canon and Tamron both make excellent versions of the 17-50mm zooms, but I'll have to save that for another review.

The Big Question:

I think the big question for most consumers is which 50mm lens to buy, the 1.8, 1.4, or 1.2? I have both the 1.8 and the 1.4 and they are both wonderful. I have the 1.8 for my old Rebel and the 1.4 for my 7D. The 1.8 is a very poor build quality, but it produces wonderful images, a perfect complement to to Rebel. The 1.2 is the godfather of all primes and would enhance anyone's ability to take a great photo, but it's hard to justify the $1500 for the lens. I think the 1.4 is the perfect lens for the enthusiast who is ready to take their photography to the next level and begin experimenting with the classic 50mm focal length, even if it may be on crop sensor.

What This Blog Is About

2011-06-21T20:44:00.001-07:00

Are you into photography? Are you obsessed with the newest gadgets? Well then you are in good company here. I will produce tutorials, sample photos, and general news in the area of photography.

Which lens should I buy?
	Canon 70-200mm L f/2.8 USM ($1,300)
	Canon 70-200mm L f/4 IS USM ($1,100)
	Canon 135mm L f/2 USM ($1,000)
	Canon 70-200 f/4 USM ($600)
	Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM

pollcode.com free polls